The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-12-10
.CHARLTONW|LlB Be .
TRIED In II AL Y
Stated rtment Grants
Request for His
Surrender.
CHARGED WITH
KILLING WIFE
Question Of Prisoners Insanity
Is One for Courts to Deter
Enthusiastically Knox Takes
Broad Ground in His opin-
ion Setting Forth Re
sponsibility of Nation.

Washington. .. c., December D.
Secretary Knox to-day granted the re-
quest of Italy for the surrender of
Porter Charlton, charged with the mur-
der of his wife HI Lake Como. The sec
retary holds that the fact that Italy
refuses to surrender her citizens to the
this country from the obligation OF the
extradition treaty to surrender to
Italy fugitives from justice from that
country. The question of the insanity
of Charlton, 1t 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
man. as the statutes required final ac-
tion in the case within sixty days from
the date of his commitment.
The secretary takes broad ground in
his opinion, holding that the mere fact
that the Italian government declines to
surrender its own citizens does not ab-
solve the United states from full re-
sponsibility under the extradition
treaty, and In no way acts to abrogate
that treaty. The legal contention of
counsel for the accused on that point
and on he other points that the 1tal-
ian demand for Charlton's surrender
had not been made In strict accordance
with the requirements OF the treaty
are swept away by the secretary as
without basis. and the committing mag
istrate's proceedings are found to have
been regular in all respects.
Recourse to Court.
!. closing remark by the secretary is
of deep Significance. carrying the plain
intimation that Charlton's attorney
may have further recourse to the
courts if they are disposed to raise the
question of insanity.
Tie decision relates the history OF
the case. beginning with the arrest OF
Charlton in New York on June Il last,
on complaint of the Italian yice-consul
Formal demand for the eytradition
of Charlton, under and pursuant to the
terms of the extradition treaty be-
tween the Unit.d States and italy
reads the decision signed BY Secretary
Knox. was made upon this government
by The government of Italy under date
Of July 2s treceiyed by the department,
July 30) that is, within the forty-das
period for this purpose in the! treaty
Later Charlton was taken before al
extradttlon magistrate, who, after 9
formal hearing, as provided by treat!
and statute, committed him on October
IA, for surrender TO the Italian gov
ernment.
"The committing magistrates record
as transmitted to the department, dis
closes no material informality in the
proceedings, and case calling for the
surrender of the accused under the
treaty terms Is made out. unless sucf
surrender is to be defeated by objec'
tions raised by counsel for the accused
These objections are in their order:
Answers to Objections.
First, that the Secretary of State
should decline to surrender the accused
and the President should direct his dis.
charge, because the record of the com
mitting magistrate. as transmitted L
the department., does not contain tht
formal demand of the Italian govern
ment for the SURRENDERED the fugitive
or show that such demand was made
within the treaty period; and the de
partment may not. in passing upon the
matter Of surrender. take note OF the
fact that the demand has been made
within the proper time and that 1t II
in the departments files. forming ,
part of the departments record OF thu
case, since the department. may not, =
passing upon the question. take int
consideration any evidence not before
the committing magistrate.
Secretary Knox, after discussing th'
objection, concludes that "the first OBJ
lection raised by counsel for the &C
cused in this case Is without merit ant
of no effect in defeating extradition.'
Secretary Knox then quotes the secont
objection raised by counsel for the de
fense, as follows:
.'The second objection is that Charl
ton should not be surrendered becaus.
under the treaty providing that eacl
government shall surrender persons
fugitive from the one and found II
the other, Italy refused to surrendel
to the United States for trial and pun
ishment Italian subjects who wer,
fugitivesi from the justice Of the United
States, therefore the United States i:
relieved from any obligation to sur
render its citizens fugitives from Italy
and since the executive may not sur.
render fugitives to another govern
ment. except pursuant to some positiv,
treaty obligation or congressional act
and there being no such obligation
here existing. there Is no authority II
the executive to surrender Charlton
and he must therefore be discharged
"This contention" the secretary con,
cludes, hike the frst, is without merit
in this case"
Continuing, the secretary says:
Question for Decision.
."The, question is now for the tirs
thine as to whether or not the United
states is4under obligation. under the
treaty, to surrender to Italy for tria
and punishment citizens Of tho Unttet
States, fugitiYes from the Justice OF
italy, notwithstanding the interpreta,
tion placed upon the treaty by Italy
with reference to italian SUBJECTS
On this point Secretary Knox con
|cludes;
"since eytradition treaties could not
be reciprocal. even III the matter o
THE surrendering Of citizens. 1t woult
seem entirely sound to consider our.
selves as bound to surrender our citi.
zens to. italy, even though Italy should
not, by reason OF the provisions of hei
municipal law, beahle to surrender its
citizens. 70 usa usas E M ..,s
Goncefiitng q the question Of charllii
lcontinled On Second Pase.) -