New-York tribune., 1910-12-10
TO SURRENDER CHARLTON

Continued from frst page.
the political or diplomatic measures of the
diplomatic branch of the government.
objection raised by counsel for the accused
in this case is without merit and OF no ef-
feet in defeating extradition.
The second objection Is that Charlton
should not be surrendered because, under
shall surrender PERSONS fugitive from
the one and found the other. Italy re-
fused TO surrender to the United States for
We're fugitives from the justice of the
United States, therefore the United States
is relieved from any obligation to surrender
its citizens fugitive from Italy. And since
the Executive may not surrender fugitives
TO another government except pursuant to
some positive treaty ea er enigason toe or Son e,a
obligation here existing, there is no author
ity in the Executive to surrender Charlton
and he must therefore be discharged.
This contention. like the first. is without
merit in this case.
Extraditon Not Wholly Reciprocal.
The fundamental falIacy of this couten-
wholly reciprocal. This is not true. Our
own treaties will show, for example. that
upon occasion we have stipulated for as
matter Of the apprehension OF criminals
fugitive from our justice in other countries
where we have not been able to grant and
DO not grant or extend such assistance in
q reciprocal case Great Britain has con-
cluded a number of treaties in which it is
shan surrender its subjects to the other
contracting party, although such party re-
fuses to surrender its subjects In reciprocal
cases to Great Britain. Tho report OF the
British commissioner on eXtradition, made
in 1878, recommends that sound public
policy does not require that British sub
-r-x h1 -fv~zd <srY,
where the demanding government refuses
TO reciprocate as to its own citizens.
No reason eonstitutio,na. J., or oshsrwse' Is ia
take the other view.
Obligation of the United States.
As to the obligation Of the United
states TO surrender the prisoner under
the treaty. Mr. Knox says:
The question is now for the first time pre-
sefted as to whether or not the United
States is under obligation under the treaty
fnent citizens of the United States fugitive
from the justice of Italy, notwithstanding
the Interpretation placed upon the treaty
by italy with reference to Italian SUBJECTS:
In this connection it should be observed
that the United States, although, as stated
above, consistently contending that the
one, has not treated the Italian practice as
a breach of the treaty obligation neceS-
sarily requiring abroSation. has not apro-
gated the treaty or taken any step loohlns
thereto. and has Ch the contrary, con-
stantly regarded the treaty as In fun force
and effect and has answered the obllgatlons
imposed thereby and has invoked the rights
therein granted. It should. moreover. be
observed that even though the action OF the
Of the treaty. the trerty is binding until
abrogate6 and therefore, the treaty not
having beer abrogated, its provisions are
operative against us.
reduce itself to one of Interpretation of the
meaning of the treaty. the government CT
time called upon TO declare whether it re-
CARDS the treaty as obligatins 1t to sur
render its citizens to Italy, notwtti1st and ana
renf,sr 11 tsi rs @ eifiaens to US It should be OBJ
served in the first place, that we have al
WAITS insisted not only with reference 70
reference to the other extradtion treaties
similarly phrased, that the word PER
SONS" includes citizens. We are. there
fact that we hav. for reasons already
given ceased generally to make requisition
upon the government Of Italy Tor the sur
render of italian subjects under the treety,
would not require Of necessity that We
should as matter of logic or law. regard
ourselves as free from the obligation OF sur
rendering our citizens. we laboring under
no such legal inhibition regarding surren-
der az operates against the government or
italy. Therefore, since extradiuon treaties
of the surrenderin9 of citizens. It would
seem entirely sound to consider ourselves
as bound to surrender our citizens TO Italy,
even though Italy should not; py reason
Of the provisions of her municipal law, bs
able to surrender its citizens 10 us.
Purpose Of Extradition.
In closing his memorandum, Secretary
Knox says
In determining the meaning which. as a
matter OF public morals, ought to be given
to an eStradition treaty, II must De re11en-
bered that under our Constitution and laws
II is not possible to punish criminals III
this country for crimes committed against
the peace and dignity of foreign govern
rnants and that, therefore, unless we sur
render to such foreign governments, 1or
trial and punishment therein, our citfzehs
committing crimes within the 1urlsdiCtloh
of such governments. such citizens Will go
wholly unwhipped by justice Ehtradition
treaties are negotiated and put into force
and effect in order that persons commit
ting crimes in one country and neeang TO
another may be brought to JUSTICE ana 10
interpret an extradition treaty, whlca un-
der our Constitution is the supreme law OF
the land, in 81 way that does violence to
tts obyious meaning and our consistent
contention as 20 it's meaning; so as TO pro
duce a precise situation which the treaty
was designed to meet and correct cannot
be justineu. - . ,.,. ~. 49,
government Of the United States should
surrender to the government OF Italy. Por-
ter Charlton, charged with the crime OF
rnurder. which crime he has confessed
The tragedy in connection with which
portar Charlton son OF Judge Paul Char-
,on Is now wanted in Italy took place
earIv In June of this year on the shores OF
Lake Como Young Charlton was at the
time on a wedding trip with the woman OF
whose murder he Is now accused she was
hefore her marriage to Charlton Mrs. Mary
f.r,.tenden Scott Castle. OF San Francisco.
On June the body OF Mrs. tharlton was
found In a trunk at the bottom OF the lake.
charlton was missing. and II was at first
,,I,,.d that he also was a victim OF mur-