The border vidette., 1912-03-16

and presented Tn court, reSOrteu to diverse ways to get it, and Mir. Bowman testimony further went to show that the agent was prepared to bribe Mir. Bowman himself to get false testimony, and these witnesses, after glV- ing their testimony, denied ab- solutely that testimony was truc. One testified in the letter intro duced in evidence and tranSlat cd here. that he signed a blank sheet of paper, and from that evidence it is pretty well i'm pressed upon the mind of the commissioner of this court that the testimony of that witness was written in after that sign ature was made. The other wit ness VerdugO testified in the letter introduced here in evid- ence that he gave his testimony under the threat of being put in the Mexican army, else he would not have given it at all.
 The strongest testimony is that of Manuel Gonzalez, and there were produced here char acter witnesses to prove his utter unrelia ability. and the Unit ed States in it's efforts to combat this testimony, asked to have the testimony of several of the witnesses stricken out on the ground that it did not, legally comply with the rules of evid- ence governing testimony of that kind, but one witness after an other testified to this fact and built up right under his eyes and right under his nose evid- meet all legal requirements That is the only testimony with which the accuSa tiOn is support ed, and is very unreliable testi mOny.
 As to the point raised yester- day and brought to my attention by the defendant today, will read'again:
 Preliminary eXamina tiOn- Probable Cause = EXtraditiOn proceedings are like a prelimin- ary examination; and, if. it ap- pears that crime has been committed, and that there is probable, cause to believe that the defendant is guilty of that crime, substantial justice re- quires that he should be put upon trial. In re Heres, GS87) B Fed. Rep. 16o; Benson V. McMahon Q88St 127 U. S., 457.
 A warrant of extradition can !, evidence enough of the crinin- ality of the accused, according to the laws of the state, to jus tify his apprehension and com mitment for trial for the offense charged, if the same had been committed in the state? Matter of Calder, Q853) 3 Edm. Sel. Gas. (N. Y.) 374; Matter of Washburn G910 f Johns. Oh. (N. Y.) 1O6.
 'The proof in all cases under a treaty of eXtradition, should not only be competent, but full and satisfactory, that the offense had been committed by the fugi- tive in the foreign jurisdiction so to warrant a con viction, in the judgment of the of the offense with which he is charged, if sitting upon the final trial and hearing of the case. No magistrate should order surrender short of such proof Ex D. Kaine (1953) 3 Blatchf. (U. S) l."
 That goes further than the of the United States. Then there is another place which says that the matter is within the judgment of the ma gistrate, and in his judgment | and upon the evidence as pre- Sented.
 "When the evidence is not i and far from con but the facts and cir 1 cumstances proved authorize preSumptiOnS and l as to the guilt or of the accused, it is the province of the commissioner to determine their import and whether they are such as to justify him in exercising his power to commit the accused to i custody pending the action of he department of state. Ster- laman V. Peck, c. c. A. (189O 90 Fed. Rep. 883.
 The judment of this court is hat this is not a case wherein | |