Court Opinion

ID: 9841739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:04:00.983836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:32.945405
License: Public Domain

' Me. Justice Geay
concurring.
I concur in the decision jef the court, upon the single ground, that by the act of Congress of March 3,. 1869, c. 141,,§ 1, (embodied in § 5275 of the Be vised Statutes,) providing measures by which any person, delivered up by a foreign govern-. ment for the purpose of being tried here for a crime of which he has been accused, may be secured against lawless violence “ until the final conclusion of his 'trial for the crimes or offences specified in the warrant of extradition, and until his final discharge from custody or imprisonment for or on account of such crimes, or offences, and for a reasonable time thereafter,” the political department of the government has clearly manifested its will, in the form of an express law, (of which any person prosecuted in any court within the United States has the right to claim the protection,) that the accused shall be tried only for the crime specified in the warrant of extradition, and shall be allowed a reasonable timé to depart out of the United States, before he can be arrested or detained for another offence.
Upon the broader question whether, independently of any act of Congress, and in the absence of any affirmative restriction in the treaty, a man surrendered for one crime should *434be tried for another, I express no opinion, because not satisfied that that is a question of law, within the cognizance of the' judicial tribunals, as contradistinguished from a question of international comity and usage, within the domain of statesmanship and diplomacy. ■