Court Opinion

ID: 9841740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:04:00.988469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:32.947964
License: Public Domain

MR. Chief Justice Waite
dissenting.
, I am unable to concur in the decision of this case. A fugitive from justice has no absolute right of asylum in a country to which he flees, and if he can be got back within the jurisdiction i>f the country whose laws he has violated, he may be proceeded with precisely the same as if he had not fled, unless-there is something in the laws of the country where he is to be tried, or in the way in which he was got back, to prevent. I do not understand this to be denied. All, therefore, depends in this case on the treaty with Great Britain under which this extradition was effected, and§ 5275 of the Revised Statutes. I concede that the treaty is as much a part of the lav/ of th,e - United States as is a statute; and if there is anything in it which forbids a trial for any other offence than that for which the extradition was made, the accused may use it as a defence to a. prosecution on any other charge until a reasonable time has elapsed after his release ..from custody on account of the-crime for which he was sent back. 'But I have been unable to find any such provision. The treaty requires a delivery up to justice, on demand, of those accused of certain crimes, but says nothing about what shall be done with them after the delivery has been made. It might have provided that they should not be tried for any other offences than those for which they were surrendered, but it has- not. Consequently, afe it seems to me, the accused has acquired no new rights under the treaty. JEt'e fled from the justice of the country whose laws he violated, and has beer, got back. ' The treaty under which he was surrendered has granted him no immunity, and therefore it has not provided him with any new defence. This seems to have been the view taken by the English government during the time of the controversy growing out of the demand made *435for the extradition of Winslow; for, in the debate in the House of Lords, the- Lord Chancellor (Cairns), while supporting the English view of the matter, and referring to the cases ' Avhich had been cited against it, said: “ In that class of casés . . the prisoners, who had been surrendered on onp charge, and who were being tried upon another, themselves attempted to raise'the defence that they could not be tried for an offence different from that for Avhich they had been surrendered. Such cases certainly have no ■ application Avhatever to the present question, because nothing can be more clear than that a prisoner himself has no right to raise such a defence. Even in France, Avhere . . . the law and practice of extradition goes far beyond that which prevails in this country and in the United States, a prisoner is not permitted to set up such a defence, for the clear reason that he is Avithin the jurisdiction of the court, Avhich has the authority to try him for the offence of Avhich he is charged, and that Avhether he ought to be tried for an offence other than that for Avhich he has been surrendered is a matter of diplomacy betAveen the tAvo countries, and not a question between the prisoner and the court before which 'he is being tried.” Foreign ^Relations of the United States, 1876, 291.
This is, I think, the true rule, and it is in full accord Avith the principles applied by this court in The Richmond, 9 Cranch, 102, AArhere it Avas insisted upon by Avay of defence that a vessel proceeded against for a violation of the non-intercourse act had been seized within the. territorial jurisdiction of Spain.' As' to this,. Chief Justice Marshall said, in delivering the opinion of .the court: “ The seizure of an American vessel within the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign poAver is certainly an offence against that poAver, which must be adjusted between the two governments. This court can take no cognizance of it; and the majority of the court is of opinion that the law does not connect that trespass, if it be one, Avith the subsequent seizure by the civil authority, under the process of the District. Court, so as to annul the proceedings of that couit against the vessel.” If either country should use its privileges under the treaty to obtain a surrender of a fugitive on the *436pretence of trying him for an offence for which extradition could be claimed, so as to try him for one for which it could .not, it might furnish' just cause, of complaint on the part' of the country which had been .deceived, but it would be a matter entirely for adjustment between the two countries, and 'which could in no way enure to the benefit of the accused except' through the instrumentality' of the government that had been induced to give him. up.
As to § 5275,of the Revised Statutes I have only to say that, in my opinion, it neither' adds to the rights óf tjhe accused nor changes the effect of the treaty as a part- of the law of the United States. The accused was surrendered by Great Britain to the United States, and the United States are alone responsible to that country for whatever may be done with him in consequence of his surrender. He was delivered into the possession of the United States, and, in my opinion,, that possession may at any time be regained by the United States under this statute from the State, or its authorities, so long as the "accused remains in custody, if it should be necessary in order to enable them to keep their faith with Great Britain in respect to the" surrender.
I do not care to elaborate the argument on either of these questions. My ofily purpose is to state generally the- grounds of my dissent.