Слике страница

tain amount of scholarship, but it is precisely what the Law of Nations, and Mr. Wheaton's treatment
we said, lacking in finish and completeness in some conforms to the ordinary rule. In his précis he re-
of the higher regions of jural thought, and our sug- fers to a number of works, few of which seem to
gestions, made in a kindly spirit, were intended be in the Institute Library, though of course the
simply to indicate a deficiency easily supplied in more noted are there. But the delicate threads
case the governing body chose to set to work in a of this author's thoughts could have not been fash-
less perfunctory fashion. A few hints of this kind ioned at the Law Institute, as we said.
are not calculated to injure any institution,

Wheaton refers to Cicero's De Republica, Hobbe's Unless Story could have written his Commenta- DeCive; to Leibnitz' Jesuits De Legibus, Codex Juris ries on the Constitution without much of the mate-Gentium, and to Marten's Noûveau Recueil. These rial he cites, as we said, he certainly could not have famous works which certainly go to make up a written it at the Law Institute Library. Story complete law library are not in the New York Law knew that the entire governmental superstructure Institute. We do not find there, indeed, Lord Livof the United States was not new, but that it was erpool's Discourse as to Neutral Nations, nor reared on the colonial fabric, and that the revolu- Schoell's Histoires des Traités de Paix, nor Arendt's tion indicated a change, and not res nora. He, Essai sur la Neutralité de la Belgique, yet in a few therefore, begins his work with an elaborate descrip- pages they are often cited in Wheaton's Internation of the jural condition of the original colonies, tional Law. What Mr. Winter's theory as to and he cites a great deal of material which is not Wheaton's work is, we do not know, but we do know inaccessible, and which determined effort ought that our statements as to Wheaton's inability to long since to have gathered on the Institute shelves. have worked as he did in the Institute Library was

Works which deal with the colonial laws of New the fact, not fiction, nor careless editing on our part. York and with the laws of other colonies, a period We repeat again what we also have said before, almost twice as long as our present government has

that the New York Law Institute Library, really endured, are certainly not to be relegated to the an- admirable as it now is, cannot be made great or beatomical museums; they belong, and properly belong, yond criticism, by one collector or by two. It in a tirst-class American law library. Story evidently needs the co-operation of many men of many minds, thought they belonged to a law book, or he would and it needs a scholarly atmosphere. It is no lonnot have referred to them as he does in his great ger the little technical library in the Federal Court work. In the first book of his Commentaries on the House in Chambers street, It has now over thirty Constitution this author makes a number of referen- thousand volumes, and is increasing rapidly in size, ces to colonial authorities, none of which are in the and is taking a place among the literary instituInstitute Library. We refer by name to “ Chalmers' tions of modern civilization. The question with Annals; Douglass' British Settlements, Pownall's us was, should it now change its motive and become Colonies, where the rights and constitution of the something more than a mere workshop? Should Americans are discussed; Stoke's American Constitu- it be artistic, elegant and complete, or wholly utilitions, with a variety of colonial precedents; Bacon's tarian? In short, should it be only a complete recLaws of Maryland, printed at Annapolis in 1764; ord of judicial utterances, no matter how crude or Charters of North American Provinces, London, forlorn, or comprise also the science, the philoso1766 ; Colony Laws of Connecticut; Plymouth Laws; phy, and the genius upon which the fewer and best Holmes' Annals; Proud's Pennslyvania; Dallas' judicial utterances have been fashioned? Our judgLaws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; ment was that in this collection more attention had Walsh's Appeal, Philadelphia, 1819, and Hazard's been paid to reports, to statutes, and to size, than Collection of State Papers, Philadelphia, 1792–4. to completing the collection in any one of the sevAll these works are indispensable to lawyers deal-eral higher walks of jural science, and we think so ing with colonial patents, boundary questions, or

still, Mr. Winters to the contrary notwithstanding. with issues involving the fundamental common-law In this statement we did not ignore the fact that rights of Americans. Besides those mentioned by the Institute Library had been originally collected as Story, others occur to us as missing from the Insti- a mere help to practicing lawyers, but we had suptute, such as the Charters of the old English Colo- | posed that a division of labor, which always takes nies, London, 1850, a late book, but sure to become place as political societies become more complex, fare in course of time, and already desirable for a now made it expedient for the library to go out of

the statistical line and into the systematization of Nor do we credit Mr. Wheaton, as does Mr. Winters , with the art of getting his facts from his head,

statistics, in other words, into the science and phiand unless he possessed this art, as we said, he losophy of the law.

But here Mr. Winters' letter could not have written his great work in the pre

seems to think that the Institute Library fulfills cincts of the Law Institute Library. The reasons

every rational requirement, and if his complacency why he could not have written them may be briefly in this respect is shared by the Institute, we can indicated : The most debatable question in all in only regret that our hints bave fallen on such stony ternational law is the foundation on which the so- ground, and are to bear no fruit. called law rests. Some theory on this subject is

We should also while on this subject advert to usually introductory to any systematic treatise on the curious idiosyncrasy which regards an Ameri

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

law library.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

an error.

can law library as moderately complete in the phil- and a Savigny combined, he could not make a comosophical department, although possessing no copy plete law library by himself. of such works as Plato's Laws, Aristotle's Politics, Having paid some attention to the subject under Hobbe's Leviathan and Bodin's Work on the Com- discussion, we can furnish a good many more sug. wealth, translated into English in 1605, and most gestions to the improvement of the Law Institute Lipotent in its influence on English jurisprudence. brary, as well as to that of our other law libraries,

No doubt the line of demarcation between although we do not for an instant suppose that the strictly technical libraries and libraries of purely evidently satisfied temper of the Institute faculty in literary character is not a very wide or perceptible particular will suffer it to deviate from a mechanical one, but it nevertheless exists, and it can be easily policy, adopted, as Mr. Winters states, some twentyperceived by cultivation and attention. If it is im- five years back. In conclusion we desire to say that agined that it can be perceived in the dark or by

our statements in regard to the library in question any one in odd moments with casual attention, it is

were facts, and not, as Mr. Winters thinks, errors. For this reason great technical libraries

When we make errors are the result of the profoundest co-operative labor, them, but when we do not, we do not care to be

we are glad to correct and not of the accidental or casual attention of a few busy, bustling men, however able. With care

hastily impugned. the line of demarcation indicated may be detected, but it will require an examination of several cognate fields, bordering on the strictly jural relations. EXTRADITION-HAM V. STATE, 4 TEX. APP. 645.

The science of politics and the science of law are regarded by scientists as cognate branches of soci: Thin 1938. CHam was extradited from Missouri to

'HIS case came before the Court of Appeals of Texas ology. Without some knowledge of the science of politics, the legal legislator may as easily go wrong

Texas, on the basis of an indictment found against

him by the grand jury of Limestone county in Texas, as right-who then shall say that works on the sci

charging him “with the crime of forging a deed to ence of politics are vot part of a technical law li- land in Texas.” Being brought into the State, and brary? If they are a part, why is not Freeman's lodged in the jail of Travis county, he was charged by Comparative Politics at the disposition of a reader another indictment, preferred by the grand jury of in the Law Institute? Where are Vico's Scienza

that county, with the crime of uttering a forged in

strument. For the latter offeuse, though not the one Nuova and a score of other great books on political

for which he was extradited, and though, as charged, science? Certainly next to this category belong committed prior to his extradition, he was tried, consuch works as M’Lennen's Primitive Marriage, De victed, and sentenced to punishment. Lavelye’s Primitive Property, if not Sir A. Lyall's A motion for a new trial was made, and this motion Aisiatic Studies.

being overruled by the court below, au appeal was

taken to the Court of Appeals of Texas. One of the Let us suggest another line of thought! Did it

legal points-the only one that we propose to consider ever occur to Mr. Winters, or to any of the library -on which the appeal was based, raised the question committee of the Law Institute, that the colonial re. whether it was " lawful to try the defendant on a ports of the British colonies offer us two strict anal charge for which he was not extradited, and alleged to ogies where the later English reports offer us one?

have been committed at a date anterior to the incep

tion of the extradition proceedings." The counsel of As a Dutch colony originally, we of New York pre

Ham maintained that this was not lawful, and heuce sent many similarities in our legal development to that the trial court was without jurisdiction. Good Hope, and the other Dutch possessions which The substance of what Judge White, in stating the have drifted under English laws. In those colo- opinion of the court, said on this point, is epitomized nies comes up the conflict between the Dutch and

in the following language-found in the syllabus of

the case English laws which occasionally arises here. As a

"Under the provision of the United States Constitu. colony of England the law of New York, in the last

tion respecting the rendition of fugitives from justice, century, would receive more valuable illustration and the laws regulating the same, a citizen of another from English colonies than from Great Britain. We State, extradited therefrom to this State, may be here do not however propose to tutor the faculty of the

tried for a different offense than that alleged against Law Institute Library, or to censure any one, for

him in the requisition on which he was extradited to

this State. The doctrines of international extradition we are not a public censor morum, but it does seem

in this respect, whether based on comity or on treaty to us that any helpful, honest suggestion from a stipulations, have no application to extradition cases law journal to a law institution should be wel. arising between the different States of the American comed rather than hastily and inconsiderately chal- Union under their common Constitution, whose imlenged. Mr. Winters is at liberty to impugn our

perative mandate on this subject is founded on the

mutual trust and confidence of the States, and guarded statements if he wishes, but we beg to say to him by the guaranty that each State shall secure to the for his future guidance that when we make plain citizens of her sister States the privileges and immu. statements of fact we are prepared to stand by nities she concedes to her own." them. In all that we have said we mean no reflec- The actual ruling of the court in this case, being tions on the labors of Mr. Winters himself - labors

that of the highest court of Texas, settles the law for

the courts of that State in respect to this particular of great professional and technical value — but we

question, and also furnishes an authority to be condo mean to say that were he a Scaliger, a Muratori, sidered by the courts of other States. The correct

[ocr errors]

ness of the ruling, and of the reasoning in support of party is charged with crime, in the way prescribed, is it, is open to inquiry; and such an inquiry it is pro- made a sufficient presumption of guilt to justify his posed to make in the present article, and in the follow- arrest and surrender. ing order:

The procedure, in international extradition, as pro1. After referring to the American and British doc- | vided for by law and by treaty, is somewhat but uot trine that there can be no iuternational extradition, | wholly different. The party must, by complaint on except as provided by treaty stipulation, Judge White be charged with some one or more of th crimes proceeds to say, that "without any treaty stipulation specified in the proper treaty; and when this is done, to that effect, it may now be considered as a well es-authority is given for his arrest and au examination of tablished doctrine of international extradition that the charge. This examination is not a trial with a good faith and comity require of the nation to which view to his punishment, if found guilty, but simply a the fugitive is surrendered that he be tried alone upon process to ascertain whether the evidence is "sufficient the specific offense for which he was surrendered, and to sustain the charge under the provisions of the that he cannot be held to answer for another and dif- proper treaty or convention." Rev. Stat., 85270. ferent offense." We have here, in respect to interna The general treaty rule, as to the sufficiency of ori. tional extradition, even witbout a treaty stipulation to dence, is that it must be such “as according to the that effect, the admission of the principle for which the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so British goverumeut contended in the correspondence charged shall be found, would justify his apprehenwith regard to Winslow, which was placed in the En- sion and commitment for trial if the crime or offense glish Extradition Act of 1870, which has been uni- | had there been committed." The evidence must be formly asserted by the text-writers on extradition, sufficient to secure precisely the same legal result that which is now sustained by the preponderance of ju- | in inter-State extradition is secured by the charge of dicial authority in this country, and which the coun

crime in the way specified. Iu both cases there must sel of Ham claimed to be applicable to a case of inter-) be a sufficient prima facie showing of crime to justify State extradition.

the apprehension and commitment of the accused 2. Judge White, while admitting this principle party for trial; and in neither case is it necessary to when the extradition is international, denies its appli- prove the actual guilt of this party. In re Farez, ñ cability to a case of inter-State extradition, stating as

Blatobf. 345, 358. follows the first of his reasons for the denial:

Now it is undoubtedly true, that in the two forms “The relations between the States, as created by the of extradition, there is some difference in the progeneral government, under their status and inter- cedure; but this difference is not one that in either course were different in most material respects, civilly form has any relation to the question whether the and politically, from that subsisting between separate party, if delivered up, may or may uot be tried for a and independent nations. And this difference is es

crime different from the one for which he was depecially apparent in the difference, heretofore alluded manded and on the charge of which he was surrendered. to, existing as to the modes of procedure in extradi- There is manifestly nothing in it to indicate, or even tion matters."

suggest, that he cannot be so tried when the extradiWhat the actual difference is between the States of | tion is international, or that he may be, when it is inthe Union, and independent nations, considered re

ter-State. Whatever may be the truth on this sublatively to their status and intercourse with each ject must depend on other cousiderations than such other, Judge White does not explain, with the single as grow out of a difference of procedure in the two exception of that which exists “as to the modes of forms of extradition, especially when we remember procedure in extraditiou matters." This he presents

that in both forms there must be a sufficient showing by a lengthy quotation from the deliverance of Chief of crime to justify the apprehension and commitment Justice Savage, in the Matter of Clark, 9 Wend. 212. of the accused party for trial. The quotation however has no reference to the point The simple charge of crime by indictment or affithat was before the Court of Appeals of Texas. Clark davit does this in the one case; and the charge of made no such claim as that set up in behalf of Ham. crime, by complaint on oath, supplemented by an exHe simply offered to show by his own affidavit tbat amination at wbich the proper evidence appears, does the charge against him was not true; and in reply this in the other. The result reached in both cases is Chief Justice Savage said, that the actual truth of the the same, and this is a sufficient showing of crime to charge was not the question to be decided. Whatever justify the apprehension and detention of the party might be requisite in the way of proof if the case were

for trial. We fail to see what logical connection the one of international extradition, the only question

difference of procedure in the two cases has with the before the court was whether Clark was “properly

question to which Judge White was speaking. charged with the guilt.” If he was, that was “suffi

3. The next point relating to extradition, fouud in cient" in inter-State extradition; and hence his offer | the deliverance of Judge White, cannot be better to show by his own afidavit that the charge was false summarized than in the following words of the syllawas not admissible. All that was said in the passage

bus: quoted relates to this single point.

“The doctrines of international extradition in this The Constitution, in a case of inter-State extradi- respect, whether based on comity or on treaty stipulation, requires that the party should be charged with tions, have no application to extradition cases arising some specific crime; and as an indictment or an affi. between the different States of the American Union darit is the usual American mode of charging a crime,

under their common Constitution, whose imperative and sufficient evidence of its commission to justify, in mandate on this subject is founded on the mutual the case of an indictment, the arrest and commitment trust and confidence of the States, and guarded by the of the accused party for trial, and in the case of an affi- guaranty that each State shall secure to the citizens davit, the arrest and examination of this party, with a of her sister States the privileges and immunities view to bis commitment if the evidence be found suf- she concedes to her own." ficient, Congress saw fit to adopt this mode of pro

Here are two reasons for the opinion expressed; and cedure in charging a crime for the purpose

of arrest- the first of these reasons is " founded on the mutual ing and delivering an alleged fugitive from justice to

trust and confidence of the States

in each other as the State demanding him for trial, leaving that State,

members of “the American Union under their comafter getting possession of the fugitive, to determine

mon Constitution," which do not exist to the same exthe question of his actual guilt. The fact that the

tent in the intercourse of nations with each other.

our com

Hence as to the question whether a party, demanded There is really no argumentative force in either of by one State and delivered to another on the charge of the special reasons, assigned by Judge White, to show a specific offense, could be tried for another and dif- that the admitted doctrine in respect to the crime for ferent offeuse, no “prohibition" of such trial was iu- which the party may be tried, when the extradition is terposed. The whole matter was, or the score of international, does not apply when it is inter-State. good faitb and comity," left “entirely to the discre. The first reason is too general and indefinite to prove tion of the State which had the right to demand him any thing; and the second has no application to the for any crime which he committed."

question that was under discussion. The general terms in which this reasoning appears 4. Judge White completes his deliverance ou this make it difficult to see what it proves, or that it proves branch of the case before the court, by citing the deany thing. The meaning of the Constitution, either cision of Judge Nixon in the Matter of Noyes, 17 Alb. in its express words, or by just and fair implication, is L. J. 407, in support of his view. The reasoning of not to be settled by judicial fanoy work. The rhetori- Judge Nixon, into which we cannot bere inquire, was cal phrases, “their common Constitution,"

very different from that of Judge White; and yet be mon country," "the mutual trust and confidence of came to the same conclusion. The case was therefore the States," "implicit faith and confidence," and the pertinent to the purpose for which it was cited, as an like, which figure in this part of the deliverance, do authority. not furnish rules for interpreting the Constitution of 5. The two States that are concerned with a particuthe United States. They are entirely outside of the lar case of extradition—the one iu demanding a fugiextradition provision of this instrument, and supply tive criminal, and the other in acting upon the deno foundation on which, in the disposal of a judicial mand-are the only parties to the transaction in either case, to base a legal doctrine under it. The provision form, or at any stage. The Supreme Court of the means just what it expressly says, and which it fairly United States in Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 374, implies; and this meaning is to be ascertained by a said, with reference to this point, that "the duty encareful examination of the words used, rather than by joined is several and not joint, and every governor general statements about the "American Union,', acts separately and independently for himself." Re

our common country,” and “the mutual trust and ferriug to the extradition of MoGuire from the State coufidence of the States." Such statements are too of Maine, while he was under recognizance in the State indefinite and elastic to determine any question of of Connecticut to appear before a court of that State law.

and answer to a criminal charge there pending against The other reason is drawn from the guaranty of the him, the court further said: We cannot hold that Constitution that "the citizens of each State shall be Connecticut was in any sense a party or consenting to entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in what was done in New York." the several States." The difficulty with this reason is The extradition McGuire was between New York that it has no application to the question that Judge and Maine; and with it Connecticut, though a member White was considering. It is well settled that this of the "American Union, and with the other States provision is limited to what are called fundamental living under a “common Constitution,” had nothing rights, and that in respect to these rights, it means to do, and the same was true of every other State of that each of the States shall secure to the citizens of the Union. The fact that the States, directly conother States, when within its jurisdiction, the same cerned in the matter, were members of the "American privileges and immunities that it secures to its own Union,” and for certain purposes relating to that citizens, and in this respect, and to this extent, treat Union, were confederated together under a “ common them as if they were citizens of that State Corfield v. Constitution,' and for like purposes and to the same Coryell, 4 Wash. 371, and Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. extent, were confederated with all the other States of 35.

the Union, did not, according to the Supreme Court Now plainly the question whether a party, extra- of the United States, in any sense, make the other dited from one State to another, can in the latter State States parties to an extradition between New York and in consistency with the extradition provision of and Maine. The matter concerned these States, aud the Constitution, be tried for a different offense than these only, and that too, as completely as if they had the one for which he was extradited, does not come been independent and sovereign nations; and uo other within the limits of the guaranty cited by Judge White. States bad any power to exercise in regard to it, or The right of exemption from such trial, if it exists at any duty to perform, or held any relation whatever to all, is not a fundamental right, and is not derived from it. State citizenship. The question to be determined, is 6. The particular States involved in a case of extranot whether an extradited party, if tried for a criine dition as the exclusive parties thereto, are not municiother than that for which he was extradited, must in palities oreated by the general government, or dethe process of such trial, enjoy the privileges and impendent upon it for their existeuce, but self-governing munities conceded by the State to its own citizens States exercising powers not derived from the general when trying them on criminal charges, but whether he government, or even from the Constitution of the can be so tried at all; and to this question the guar- United States, and having defined territories within anty referred to has no application.

which these powers are operative upon the inhabiMoreover it may be, and generally is, the fact that tants thereof; and as such, and such only, they act, the party demanded is a citizen of the State from whether in demanding or surrendering fugitive crimiwhich he fled, and which in the event of his delivery nals. They exercise, through their respective chiet will try him for an offense against its laws. Such a

magistrates, the powers of State sovereignty. Their case clearly would not come within the meaning of relation to each other in this respect, and for this purthe guaranty.

pose, is precisely like that of two pations in similar The provision establishes no rule as to the manner circumstances, with the single exception that a proin which a State shall deal with its own citizens; and vision of the Constitution, and not that of a treaty, hence if the extradited party be a citizen of the State and a law of Congress for carrying the constitutional that tries him, the guaranty will have nothing to do provision into effect, supply the rule of their action. with the case. It can, at the very utmost, operate They are as independent and sovereign in their action only on the supposition, generally not true, that this under this rule, as are two nations acting under the party is a citizen of some other State than the one that provisions of an extradition treaty. tries him on a criminal charge.

The doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United

[ocr errors]

States in Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, was that Judge Daniels, in Lagrave v. Case, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.)
there is no process of Federal coercion by which a 333, said : " In principle there is no practical difference
State governor cani, upon the demand of another State between the case of a fugitive brought from a neigh-
governor, be compelled to make the delivery of a fugi- | boring State under the Constitution and laws of the
tive criminal. The same doctrine was stated by the United States and one brought from a foreign country
court in Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 370. The court under the provisions of treaties. In each the right of
said in this case: “In such cases the governor acts in freedom to return is precisely the same; and their im-
his official character, and represents the sovereignty | plied guaranty of that right under the law is no greater
of the State in giving efficacy to the Constitution of iu one case than in the other."
the United States and the law of Congress. If he re- It is true that the relation of the States of the
fuse, there is no means of compulsion."

“American Union” to each other are not in all respects If this be so, then no nation can be more sovereign like those of separate and independent pations to each and independent, when acting under an extradition other; and yet the Constitution, wbich is the exponent treaty, than is a State when acting under the extra- of their State relations, furnishes no reason why the dition provision of the Constitution and the law of principle, which in the absence of treaty stipulations Congress for its execution. The demanding State, otherwise providing limits the use of the custody through its chief executive magistrate, determines for gained by international extradition to the specific puritself whether it will make a demand, just as a sovereign pose for which the extradition was asked and granted, nation determines for itself the same question; and so should not equally apply to inter-State extradition. the State to which the demand is addressed deter- Extradition, in both cases, is essentially the same mises for itself, through a similar magistrate, whether thing. The two States concerned in the one case are it will comply therewith, just as a nation determines actiug in their separate, independent and sovereign the same question. There is no power anywhere to capacity as States, just as if they were uations, acting revige and reverse these determinations. They are an- under the obligations of a treaty; and no other States alogous, and in both cases the determiuations of sov- are parties to the action, or have any thing to do with ereignty.

it, auy more than if those two States were foreign na7. The relations of the States to each other, as estab- tions. The Constitution of the Quited States does not lished by the Constitution of the United States, are so consolidate or blend the several States together by not such as to create any essential difference between their confederate relations to each other, or to the international and inter-State extradition. Messrs. United States, as to destroy their distinct and separate Justices Field, Clifford and Miller, referring in their autonomy, or make extradition between them essendissenting opinion in Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 356, tially different in the powers exercised, the procedure 377, to the case of McGuire, which was a case of inter- adopted, or the ends to be attained from extradition State extradition, said: “The case is not essentially between pations. different from the surrender of a fugitive from justice Judge White, on this point, was, as we must think, under a treaty." It is extradition in both cases; in mistaken in premise from which he reasoned, and both, for a crime; in both, the removal of the accused hence incorrect in his conclusion. He assumed, withparty from one jurisdiction to another, with a view to out auy explanation of the assumption, and equally his trial and punishment in the latter; in both, upon

without proof, that the relations of the States of the the specific charge of crime, and for nothing else; in Union to each other, and those of nations to each the one case, under a treaty, and in the other under a other, so differ that the doctrine as to the crime for constitutional provision. The two extraditions, in

which it is permissible to try an extradited party, adtheir great principles and ends, are essentially similar,

mitted by him when the extradition is international, and do not so differ as to exclude the application of

bas po application when it is inter-State. This we rethese principles from either.

gard as a false assumption. The Supreme Court of Michigan, in Matter of 8. The Constitution contains only one provision in Frank Cannon, 47 Mich. 481, referred to Common

relation to the extradition of fugitive criminals, and wealth v. Hawes, 13 Bush, 697, and to the fact that it

this declares that “a person charged in any State with was claimed in the argument that the case of Hawes,

treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from jus. decided under an extradition treaty with a foreign na

tice and be found in another State, shall on demand of tiou, could have “no bearing on extradition between

the executive authority of the State from which he States," and then proceeded to say: "We do not per

fied, be delivered up, to be removed to the State hayceive any ground for the distinction. The duties of ing jurisdiction of the crime.” There is here no dec. one State to another are measured by law, and not by laration, that in express words, either affirmatively or their mere good pleasure, and so are the rights of citi- negatively, determines the question whether the fugizens. The disregard of domestic duties and of foreign

tive criminal, being delivered up by one State to duties should not be considered as different in quality,

another on the charge of a specifio crime, may or may and where both depend on law it is impossible to find not by the latter State be tried for another and wholly good reason for holding either class of obligations as

different crime. Such a trial is not expressly permituudeserving of obedience.” The court regarded the

ted or prohibited. doctrine stated by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in

Is this question then answered by a just and fair imthe case of Hawes as equally applicable to a case of plication from the words used ? Such we think to be inter-State extradition.

the fact; and if so, this is as decisive as if the idea Judge Cooley, referring to the case of Hawes, says were in express words. in regard to inter-State extradition: “It should be The vital point sought to be gained by extradition is held, as it recently has been in Kentucky, that the fu

to get the party back into the State from which he gitive surrendered on one charge is exempt from trial

fled, that he might be there tried for the crime charged upon any other.” Princeton Review for January, 1879,

against him, and if convicted, punished for the same. p. 176.

This can be done only by the conseut and action of the This is the doctrine declared by the Kentucky Court

State to which he has fled, and in which he is found. of Appeals under the tenth article of the treaty of 1842

This consent, with the necessary co-operative action, with Great Britain; and the view of Judge Cooley is

as provided for by the Constitution and the law, is to that the doctrine is equally applicable to a case of ex

be given in the presence of certain specified facts as tradition between States under the Constitution of the

conditions precedent, one of which is the charge of a specific crimo against the party demanded. The de

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

United States.

« ПретходнаНастави »