The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-12-11
FIGHT ON TO SAVE CHARLTON
PROCEEDINGS IN q. =. CIRCGT
COURT ~ NEW JERSEY.

Nrits % Habea- CsrpS,s and Certierara
Granted tsrounds on which secre-
tary knsx's Decision wili Bs Fought
Question of sanit, Also Raised.
TRENTON. y j. Dec Ia. -Writs OF
hahcas corpus and certiorari were al
lowed by Judge Rsllstab in the United
states Circuit Court to-day to review the
proceedings under which Porter Charlton
il held pending extradition for the muir
der OF his wife. Mary Scott Castle Chari-
I ton. at Aialtrasio. Italv last June Besides
attacking various steps Of the proceeding
since the arrest Of Charlton in Hoboken
on June ~. tn. writ question the validity
Of the eStradition treaty between the
United States and Italy in 40 far A. il
relates to citizens Of either country seek
ing refuge IN their own land The writs
were made rsrurnable in this city on
December 10.
Application for the ~rits was made in
the name OF Paul Charlton. father Of the
accused man. who came here accom-
panied by h Floyd Clarke Of New Iork
and eS senator William ID Edwards OF
Jersey City. a. counsel In the prelimi-
nary argument Judge Rellstab asked
OF the case before he seemed satisfied
that the habeas corpus should be granted
The writ OF certiorari is incidental to the
habeas corpus and is directed against the
Department OF State and the Hudson
County Court Of Oyer and Terminer an
order that all the records may be- pro-
duced az the hearing
The writ OF habeas corpus stays the
] r. IL.
which became imminent when Secretary
Knox announced yesterday that the
United States would honor the requ-
sition Of the Italian Government and
that the State Department would issue
a warrant committing him TO the custody
OF the person authorized by the italian
Government to take him back TO that
country. Should the contentious OF coun-
sci prevail with Judge Rellstab it would
result in the release Of Charlton upon
the determination OF the habeas corpus
proceedings. Otherwise an appeal will
be taken by his counsel To the United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals and
then II necessary TO the Supreme Court
Of tho United States.
In making the application to-day Charl-
tons counsel laid considerable stress
/ upon the fact that the refusal OF the
Italian Government to place upon the
extradition treaties the same interpre-
| fation a. the Uhsted States Government
had abrogatsd the treaties in 80 far As
they related to citizens Of each country.
| lt was shown that between 1885 and
January /. 1890. the United States had
made frequent demands upon Italy
for the extradition Of Italian subjects.
fugitives from the Justice Of the United
States. in asylum in territory under
; Italian Jurisdiction. Such eItraditions
were repeatedly refused by the Italian
Government on the ground that IL was
against public policy az construed by the
I Italian political authorities TO surrender
! its citizens.
On January /. 1880. a decree OF the
King OF Italy was issued under which the
exfradition Of a citizen was positively
forbidden Counsel submitted that
against this annulment Of the treaties
the United States had not sought either
Of the two remedies open to II under
public law. namely. il had neither declared
war nor demanded ARBITRATION ON the
contrary. IL was submitted, the United
States had acquiesced in the Italian in
terpret alton Of the ext tradition coinpacts.
Judge Rellstab inquired whether this
was not a mere diplomatic acpuiescence
rather than a legal and binding deciara-
ton OF policy by this country. His sub
seauent inquiries indioai ed hat he holds
the same view As Secretary Knox. thar an
exrraditon treaty TO be effective need
not be reciprocal Both Mr Clarke and
Mr.. Edwards combated this view "a an
improper construction o! the treaties Of
exfradition
Another point raised on behalf of
Charlton was that in the revision Of the
extradition treaty in 1885 it wac expressly
provided that unless formal demand was
made for the extradition OF an accused
person within forty days from the time
OF his arrest he should be- act at liberty.
Il was submirte ed that within thar period
no documents were presented through
he state Department or tn" Hudson
county Court Of Oyer and Terminer a.
provided by the extradition convention:
whsn these documents wore presented
on August II IL was commended thar they
were neither accompanied by the formal
demand Of the Italian Government for
extradiiion nor were they aut hent caied.
ident fled and offered IN the manner pro-
vided by law
The question "a to Charlton's sanity
was also raised by an objection IN tn.
petition that Juds. Blair, acting As a
committing magistrate. had refused to
admit evidence ~ witnesses produced
to show thai Charlton was insane at th..
OF the killing 81 his wife II was also
submitted that no legal proof 81 a Grim.
Of any kind had been presented to Judg.
Blair and no proof upon which IL could
be legally predicted that Charlton had
committed the murder. From this IL
was commended hat the Court was without
Jurisdiction under the statute and treaty
upOn which he proceedings were brought
The petition set up also the various.
ot her objections To the proceedings which
were urged before Secretary Knox and
overruled by his decision handed down
yesterday