Albuquerque morning journal., 1910-12-10
BACK To ITALY
FOR PORTER
CHARLTON
SECRETARY OF STATE
ORDERS EXTRACTION
Confessed Wife Murderer Must
Face Trial For His Crime on
Foreign Shorei May Plead In
sanity,
tBy Morning Journal Special Leased wirel

lBy Morning journal Special Leased Wirel
Washington, Dec. - Secretary
Knox today granted the request of
italy for the surrender of Porter
Charlton, charged with the murder
Of his wife at Lake Como. The sec
retary holds that the fact that Italy
refuses to surrender her citizens to
the United States for trial does not
relieve this country from the obliga-
tion OF extradition treaty TO sur
render to italy fugitives from justice
from that country. The question of
sanity of Charlton, it is suggested, is
one for the courts and not for the
department to determine.
Had Secretary Knox refrained from
acting upon this case for six days,
Porter Charlton would have been
free, as the statutes required final ac-
ton within sixty days from the date
of commitment.
The legal contention OF counsel of
accused on Italy's refusal to surren-
der her own citizens and the point
that the Italian demand for Chari-
tons surrender had not been made in
strict accordance with the require
ments of the treaty are swept away
by the secretary as without basis and
the committing magistrate proceed
ings are found to have been regular
in all respects.
A closing remark by the secretary
is significant, carrying the intimatloh
that Charlton's attorney may nave
further recourse to the courts, II
they are disposed to raise the ques-
tiOn of insanity.
The committing magistrates rec
ord as transmitted to the depart
ment." says the decision, "discloses
no material informality in the pro-
ceedings and a case calling for the
surrender Of the accused under the
treaty terms is made out, unless such
surrender is to be defeated by OBJ
jections, raised by counsel for the
accused.
These objections arc in their orr
der
First, that the secretary of state
should decline to surrender the ac-
cused and the president should direct
his discharge because the record OF
the committing magistrate as trans
mitted to the department does not
contain the formal demand OF the
Italian government for the surrender
Of the fugitive or show that such de-
mand was made within the treaty
period.
Formal demand of requisition OF
one government on another for the
surrender of fugitive is of q point
ical character. 1t would appear,
therefore that the making OF a
'reuuisition' is a matter which pri-
marily concerns the political branch
of the government and that all ques-
tions regarding the propriety or SUI
ficiency of the form in WHICH 1t IS
made are for the determination oil
that branch.
THE first objection raised by
counsel for the accused in this case
is without merit and of no effect IN
defeating extradition.
THE second objection is that
Charlton should not be surrendeled
because under the treaty providing
that each government shall surrender
persons fugitive from the one ana
found in the other, Italy refused 70
surrender to the United states lot
trial and punishment italian subJeCts
who were fugitives from the justice
of the United states, therefore the
United States is relieved from any
obligation to surrender its citizen
fugitive from Italy. This contentloii'
like the first is without merit in TINS
case
ITS fundamental fallacy is that an
eXtradition treaty must be Whoh3
reciprocal This Ia not true. our
own treatries will show, Tor eNaniplv'
that upon occasion we nave stipu
lated assistance nom foreign govern
ments in the matter of the apprehen-
sion of criminals fugitive from our
Justice in other countries Wheie we
have not been able to grant ana 90
not grant or extend such assistance
In "A reciprocal case. r-,,a,
Regarding the attitude of the ltailan
government in the negotiations win
this nation. concerning the disposition
of Charlton. the decision says
The course followed by ltaly j.,
the present case indicates, as lnueeu
is set forth in the diplomatic coii 60
pondenee. that the government re
CARDS tho Irnited states and Italian
extradition treaty as being noh-reV,
rocal as to citizens or subjects OF tne
respective countries and that Wiilis !,
Italy cannot surrender To the Uhileu
States for trial and punishment hei
subjects fugitive from the justice oi
the United states. still the Unlteu
States is, pursuant to ITS own
depreciation, under obligations 70
surrender to Italy for trial ana pun
ishment citizens Of the unlteu 9t"'0
fugitive from the Justice OF ltaiy.
I'm this connection il should DC
observed that the United states, az
though consistently contending ina
Italian Interpretation was NOT Wy
proper one. has not treated the ltti-
ian practice as a breach of the treaty
obligation necessarily requiring abIo-
cation. has not abrogated the uea,s
or taken any steps looking thefeto'
and on the contrary has consis'eil tls
regarded the treaty as IN luh AZ.
and effective and has answered the
obligations fmposed thereby and mas
invoked the rights therein granted
1t should moreover be oosefNe'i
that even though the action OF the
Italian government be regarded as /"
breach of the treaty. the treaty ls
binding until abrogated and there Iore
the treaty not having been abrogateo'
its provisions are operative against
us
In concluding his memorandum ~
the case Secretary Knox says;
ssIn lafarunfniuu the melnlu1