ers
ob (2/0)
„DQİQ Olinga kaetud Bike ri asinge
}
OP Y.
In the matter
of the Extradition of Vicente Sotto.)
Enclosure 2.
Rece
C.O.
5615 240
Rece 17 FEB 13)
MEMORANDUM of the law and practice in the United States in regard
to second arrest and extradition.
The ground attempted to be covered by this memorandum is the
attitude and decisions of the American Courts, particularly the Federal
Courts, as to the propriety of a second arrest of a fugitive offender
upon the same state of basic facts after e previous discharge of the
offender by habeas corpus from an arrest for extradition.
My understanding is, that the memorandum is desired because of
the doubt raised as to the propriety of such a re-arrest in Hongkong
in view of the prohibition contained in the fifth section of 31 Car.
II C. 2. In view of the fact, as explained later, that our Federal
law contains no similar section the reasoning ust be taken by analogy,
but it seeus proper here to observe that it may very seriously be questioned whether that section or indeed the state of 1679 itself is applicable to extradition proceedings. The argument as to this belongs more properly in a discussion of English law, but if the section or statute is not applicable then the cases cited are not to be taken by analogy, they become cases in point although drawn from
foreign sources,
The law and practice in respect to Habeas Corpus in the Federal courts follows the common law of England as it existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and as it has since been modified by statutes of Congress, which statutes today are expressed in Sections 751 to 766, inclusive, of the "Revised Statutes of 1878*. Cases aris- -ing under International Extraditions are governed by this body of law, the right being the common law right end the practice statutory or
under court rules.
"But