OCR Text |
Show CHARLTON MUST RcTURN TO ITALY WASHINGTON, Dec. ! Porter Charlton will be sur- undeied to Italy. ll.nl Secretary Knox refrain- ed Iron, acting' upon this case 4- for slxt. days. Porter Charlton would have leen free, as Ihe stitules reepilred final action within sixty days from tin date of coinmitmenl. The legal contention of counsel of Ihe accused on Italy'H refusal to sur render her own citizens and the point that the Kalian demand for Charlton's surrender had nt I n made In strict accordance with tho requirements of the treaty, are swept away by the secretary sec-retary as without basis and the committing com-mitting magistrate's proceedings are fc nod to hnve been regular in all respects. re-spects. May Seek Further Recourse. A closing remark by the secretary Is significant, carrying the Intimation that Charlton's attorney may have further recourse to the courts If they are disposed to ral-o the question of Insanity. "The committing magistrate's record rec-ord as transmitted to the department," depart-ment," says the decision, "disclose no material informality In the proceedings proceed-ings and a c.-LSe calling for the surrender sur-render of the accuse.) under the treaty terms Is made nut, unless such sin renderls to be defeated by objections objec-tions raised bv counsel for the ac cuscd. ' The Objections. These objections are in their order: or-der: "Klist That tin?, secretary of state should decline to surrender the accused ac-cused and Ihe president should direct his discharge because the record of the committing magistrate as transmitted trans-mitted to the department does not contain the formal demand of the Italian government for Hie surrender of the fugitive or show that such d-rnand d-rnand was made within the treaty period. pe-riod. "l-'orn.al demand or requisition of one government upon another for the burrender of a fugitive Is of a political politi-cal character. It would appear, therefore, there-fore, that the making of a 'requisition' Is a matter which primarily concerns the political branch of the gn.ernmcnt and that all questions regarding the propriety nr sufficiency of the form ln which It is made are for the determl nation of that branch. Treaty With Italy. "The first objection raised hy counsel coun-sel for the accused In this case, is without merit and of no effect in de-featlng de-featlng extradition "The second objection is that Charl ton should not be surrendered because be-cause under the treaty providing that each government shall surrender per-pons per-pons fugitive fmm Hie one and found In tho other. Paly refused to surivMi. dor to the United S'ates for trial and punishment Italian subjects who were fugitives from the Justice of the I'lilt-ed I'lilt-ed Slates; therefore, the I'nlted States is relieved from anv obligation to surrender Its citizens', fugitives from Italy. "This contention, like the others, was without merit In this ease. Mu9t be Reciprocal. "Its fundamental fallacy Is that an extradition treaty much le wholly reciprocal. re-ciprocal. This is not true. Our own treaties will show, for example, that upon occasion we have stipulated assistance as-sistance from foreign governments In the matter or the apprehension of criminals lugltlve from our Justice In other countries where we hae not been able to grant, and do not grant or extend such assistance in a reciprocal recip-rocal case.'' Regarding the attitude 0f the Italian government In the negotiations with this nation, concerning the disposition of Charlton, the decision sa.s "The course followed by Italv in the present case Indicates, as Indeed, Is set forth In the diplomatic eorro-; eorro-; spondence, that Ihe government regards re-gards the I'nlted States and Italian extradition treaty as being non reciprocal recip-rocal as to citizens or subjects of the respective countries and that while Italy cannot surrender to the United States for trial and punishment, her subjects fugitive from the Justice of the I'nited States, .nlll the I'nlted States Is, pursuant to Its own Interpretation, Inter-pretation, under obligations to surrender sur-render to Italy for trial and punishment punish-ment of citizens of the United States fugitive from the Justice of Italy. No Breach of Treaty. "In this lonnectlon it should be observed ob-served that the United States, although al-though consistently contending I hat the Italian Interpretation was not the proper one, has not treated the Italian practice as a branch of trenty obligation obliga-tion uecessarlly requiring abrogation, has not abrogated the treat v or taken any step looking thereto, and on the contrary, has constantly regarded the treaty as in full force and effect, and has answered obligations Imposed thereby and has invoked rights therein there-in granted. ' It should, moreover, be observed that c.en t hunch action of the Italian government be regarded as a breach of the treaty, the treaty Is binding until abrogated and therefore the treaty not having been abrogated, its provisions are operative against us." In concluding his memorandum in the case, Secretary Knox says: "In determinlng'the meaning, which as a matter of public morality, ought to be given to an extradition trentv. It must be remembered that under 'our constitution und laws it Is not jmissI-blo jmissI-blo to punish criminals in this country for crimes committed against the pence and dignity of foreign governments, govern-ments, and that, therefore, unless wc surrender to such foreign governments govern-ments for trial and punishment our citizens committing crimes within the Jurisdiction of such governments, such cltlzenu will go wholly unwhipped of JU3tlcp. Defendant Has Remedy In Courts-"For Courts-"For these reasons it is decided that the government of the United States should surrender to the government of Italy, Porter Charlton, charged with the crime of murder, which crime he has confessed. "Counsel for the prisoner also contends con-tends that Charlton should not now be surrendered because the committing commit-ting magistrate refused to receive tes-tlmony tes-tlmony tending to prove his insanity. If the magistrate erred in thus refusing re-fusing diich testimony, the prisoner has his remedy In the courts, und it Is not for the department at this stage of the proceedings to pass upon this question.'' |