CO129-399 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [1-2] — Page 253

251

"

on b

i

盧

$ 69 CT! 100 of Leziulet od 80.

1.

**i*oveo

* Todia,JIDO MIOY

o Imrievod na proiziniu on juti, erv

o Ianni ni

or noiuirimper ? w.con of benifo-

May on Jua

-dului seLI

Q. Ienai ci

Aug com

.:

Hi Jug Dung Jun Dia. Rea03

'

009 J

1X A

JGL.OR

od pibeig

│:

A DIM. C

71106.197 80-

J) I . #altmi ?ʼnodpud I

Hose Tobow

bawio eel. I'M

TO JE 11 MOORB SLJ AS

VIR VOLU (Ped,Boạn tăul,(,06 Vilas où di voi hub voldova

„SRUOUS SAU 0. gum. 10 tui putol and gu begeni aver JROTTA ri,Init fan' on Zug Ton,koind a Go Jun ban

gwell, a♬ TOT OTAN QURAN

Tu Amo pol

Any on Boi.

Titull Jou

'

J, Jon o

KS BQİJLJ İn mob

Amol me to so..Tevod) ĐEL

La

ABIALU

I ebolli to Tontevall and wit, erudi

le noi.islupun brossa (Lbio sa

nime o vi I Jave to diombor boose a foo7o. J eusai bus -uuldanoŭ and go evig Lyt olpolla mie od bewoon du. ET on Japa *.Dedalviv yuorend for ascad" pazial e. To mal no new-

egund av gnisedel

#106 .6 .U

... .U DOS

4

ved in ro to JOSTIJE PO paduIIl. oni wa ST18 KEY 18İXDİJİJel

SEGURİ MO Juod diutiù aetas?

tebru zanik.evotq nulvibrida i

tencl::ì, mo) ::... #TOISU DO. 88w Nui, Mi

.1180 ITC Chen) noiw quoen

prisoner was bound over and the proceedings and testimony certified to the State Department at Washington for a mandate of extradition. The Secretary of State ordered prisoner's discharge, whereupon a new affida- -vit was filed charging the same offense and prisoner was in custody pending examination when write of Habeas Corpus was sued.

The Court (Justice Brewer of the U. S. Supreme Court), said in

part:-

"It is insisted, and that is really the principal question,

that independent of treaty obligations no proceedings can be had in this country for the arrest of one charged with crime committed in another; that the whole power of the judiciary

to act depends upon treaty stipulations; and that this

treaty stipulation contemplates but one proceeding, which being terminated by the action of the executive adversely to the extradition exhausts all the obligation of the treaty,

and puts an end to any further power of arrest. That, of

course, is a question of treat importance, and no case exact-

-ly in point has been presented. There have been cases in

which after one preliminary examination in which defendant was discharged a second has been had, but no case in which after the one preliminary examination, and after action by the Executive Department refusing to extradite under such proceeding, there have been subsequent proceedings for the same offense, and under the same treaty obligation. That, of course, compels an examination of the treaty to see what its purpose and scope is. Article 10 is as follows:-

"It is agreed that the United States and Her Britannic

Majesty shall, upon mutual requisitions by them, or their Ministers, officers, or authorities, respectively, made, deliver up to justice all persons who, being charged with the crime of murder, or assault with intent to comit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utter- -ance of forged paper, committed in the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found, within the territories of the other'".

{