The Washington herald., 1913-04-19
STATE
|. NOW RESTS With
SUPREME court
Oral Arguments Involving His
Extradition Made Before
Highest Tribunal.
HIGH JUDGES DISAGREE
Young Mans Attorney Coatends that
Treaty Was Abroyated By
ltaly's Action.

Oral arguments were submitted In the
Supreme Court yesterday afternoon IN
the case involving the extradftion to
Italy OF Porter Charlton to answer the
charge of murder. The case was un-
usual because af the issues involved. and
also because of the interest manifested
by members Of the court. The attorney
for Charlton was subjected to a running
fire OF questions from the bench almost
from the beginning Of his argument. and
the justices disagreed among themselves.
r. Floyd Clark. of New York, argued In
behalf of Charlton. and Pierre p. Gar
win. Of Jersey City. appeared for the
Italian government.
The opposition to the extradition was
rested almost entirely on tho contention
that the extradition treaty with Italy
had been practically abrogated by the
refusal of the Italian government to
surrender its Citizens on demand Of
the United States. Attorney Clark ar
gued that the treaty was practically a
dead letter as the result of the attitude
assumed by the italian government, and
that In agreeing to surrender Charlton
Secretary Knox had simply exercised an
arbitrary discretion. a thing he was not
authorized to do.
The attorney for Charlton quoted re-
peated rulings by the State Department
to show that no citizens OF the United
States can be extradited on the demand
Of any foreign government except under
treaty stipulation. 1t was evident that
this argument did not meet the approval
Of several members Of the court, espe-
cially Justice Pitney, who inquired
whether the United States government
had ever refused to extradte one of Its
citizens on the demand of Italy, since
the action was taken by the italian gov
eminent which Charlton's attorney
claimed abrogated the treaty. The at
torney replied that this was the first
case in which a demand had been made
on the United States.
Pitn-y In Argument.
Justice Pitney had quite an argument
with counsel for Charlton, in which he
insisted that the United States govern
ment has not taken any steps to abrogate
the treaty in the usual way. and that 1t
regarded the treaty as in full force and
effect. Justice Pitney insisted that coun-
sci for Charlton was asking the Supreme
Court TO abrogate a treaty, which was
not judicial function.
Justice Lurton inquired of Charlton's
attorney whether there was anything in
the diplomatic correspondence Of the
State Department showing that the
United States government had ever
abandoned it's construction of the treaty.
Attorney Clark replied that there was
not, except the action OF Secretary Hay,
who had refused on one occasion to ask
for the extradition of a citizen Of Italy
who had fled to that country charged
with crime in one of the States, on
the ground, as Secretary Hay explained,
that such a demand would be useless, be-
cause the Italian government would not
accede to il.
Attorney Clark argued that in the early
part of the correspondence between the
State Department and the Italian govern
men, relating to the surrender Of Charl-
ton, the Italian government had indicated
clearly that it was not making its de-
mand based on any treaty stipulations
and admitting that Italy had disregarded
the treaty. Counsel for Charlton insisted
that by abandoning the treaty the Ital-
ian government has rested its case en-
tirely on international comfy and that
for more than fifty years no foreign
government had ever demanded the sur
render of a citizen of the United States,
except under treaty.
Justice White Asks Questions.
Justice Pitney repeatedly called the at
torney's attention to the fact that in the
formal demand for the surrender of
Charlton the Italian government had
based it's demand on the treaty, and that
Secretary Knox, in acceding to the de-
mand. had stated that he did so under the
requirements of the treaty.
Chief Justice White appeared to at
tach considerable Importance to that por-
ton of the correspondence between the
Italian government and the State De-
partment, in which Italy admitted that
her demand for extradition did not rest
on the treaty. because she had continu-
ally disregarded it. The Chief Justice
repeatedly impressed this phase of the
case on the attorney for the Italian gov
eminent, Mr.. Garven.
The case comes to the Supreme Court
on appeal from the Federal Court of
the district of New Jersey, which dis
missed a writ of habeas corpus taken
out on behalf of Charlton to prevent
his being eXtradited. The Supreme Court
will have to decide whether an error
was committed by the lower court in
Diminishing the writ Of habeas corpus.
Charlton, who is a son of Paul Charl-
ton, one-time law officer of the Bureau
of Insular Affairs and later Federal
judge in Porto Rico under the admin
istration of former President Taft, is
in Jail in Hudson County, N. j., await
ing the outcome of the legal proceedings
in the Supreme Court. His extradition
has been demanded by the government
of Italy on the charge of having muir
dered his wife while the two were liv-
ing temporarily in villa on Lake