The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-18
AGAIN. THE LYxcHEHAuN CASE.

At the beginning of the Lynchehaun
case the Journal predicted that it would
become celebrated one and would prob
ably not be decided short of the highest
court. The prediction was based partly on
the close questions of law involved and
partly the known pertinacity Of the
British government in asserting it's sup
posed rights. The latter is a good quality
in any government. 1t must be presumed
that In asking for the extradition Of
Lynchehaun the British authorities thought
but his friends have a right to resist 1t to
the last limit of the law. Indeed. both
sides and all parties are equally interested
in having the case finally decided strictly in
accordance with the law and the treaty, as
any other than a right decision might es-
tablish an embarrassing precedent
The latest phase of the case is one of the
most curious 1t has yet developed. namely,
the proposed appeal by counsel for the Brit
ish government from the decision of United
States Judge Baker in the habeas corpus
case to the Supreme Court of the United
that the warrant of United States COM
missioner in New York did not run in this
State, and, therefore, that Lynchehaun was
wrongfully arrested under 1t. He was &C
cordingly discharged under the writ of
habeas corpus. Then he was rearrested I'M
der warrant issued by United States Com
missioner Moores, of this city, and on hear
ing and argument was again discharged on
the ground that the crime with which he
was charged was political offense within
the meaning OF the treaty between the
United States and Great Britain. As the
Journal understands the law, the commits
sioner's decision was conclusive of the ac-
ton of the executive department. If he had
decided that Lynchehaun's crime was not
political offense. the President might still
have declined to surrender him to the Brit
ish authorities on the ground that in his
opinion the crime was q political offense,
but as the commissioner held that 1t was a
political offense there was no court that
could review his decision and no appeal
would lie. But counsel for the British gov
eminent have now decided to go back Of the
commissioners decision and appeal from
that of Judge Baker in the habeas corpus
case above noted. This appeal to the Su-
rreme Court will be on the question of the
validity in Indiana of a warrant of arrest
issued by United States commissioner in
New York. The appeal might have been
made when Judge Bakers decision. was
first announced. but counsel for the British
government chose the other mode of pro-
cedure VIZ, rearresting Lynchehaun on a
new warrant. The plea that his crime was
a political offense seems not to have oc-
Cured to them. and, indeed. 1t was an
after thought TO Lynchehaun's counsel.
The Journal has already expressed the
opinion that the decision OF the commits
sioner that Lynchehaun's crime was a po-
litical offense within the meaning of the
| treaty was erroneous, and 1t is still of that
opinion. The term political offense, as used
| in several extradition treaties between the
| United States and other countries, has a
distinct meaning which does not include a
crime growing out Of local agitation or
| opposition to rental laws. Good lawyers.
however. are of different opinion, and the
point will not be settled until it has been
passed upon by the Supreme Court Of the
| United States
| Whether on an appeal to that court from
| the decision OF Judge Baker In the habeas
| corpus case the question as to the political
or nonpolitical character of the offense can
come before the court, the Journal is not
| advised. If 1t can the Journal feels conf
| dent the court will take different view OF
the question from that taken by Commits
sioner Moores. As matter of sympathy
the Journal wishes that the law of the
| case were clearly In favor of Lynchehaun
but 1t Is not question of sympathy. 1t is
n highly privileged question between ma
tions regarding the fair construction Of q
treaty the breaking down of which at one
point may mean it's failure on all. The very
next case that arises may find the United
States insisting on a different construction
Of the treaty from that given by Commits.
| sioner Moores. For this reason 1t is to bs
hoped the Supreme Court may see its way
clear to deciding all the controverted points
| in the case.