JURISDICTION OF STATES 405 the negative side. We have kept the matter under advisement until this day, and now deliver our opinion thereupon. 1. "And as to the first question, we answer: That it is our opinion, that, in this case, Charles-Julian De Longchamps cannot be legally delivered up by council, according to the claim made by the minister of France. Though, we think, cases may occur, where council could pro bono publico, and to prevent atrocious offenders evading punishment, deliver them up to the justice of the country to which they belong, or where the offences were committed. 2. "Punishments must be inflicted in the same country where the criminals were tried and convicted, unless the record of the attainder be removed into the Supreme Court, which may award execution in the county where it sits; they must be such as the laws expressly prescribe; or where no stated or fixed judgment is directed, according to the legal discretion of the court; but judgments must be certain and definite in all respects. Therefore, we conclude, that the defendant cannot be imprisoned, until his most christian majesty shall declare, that the reparation is satisfactory. 3. "The answer to the last question is rendered unnecessary by the above answer to the second question." * *82 UNITED STATES v. RAUSCHER. (Supreme Court of the United States, 1886. 119 U. S. 407, 7 Sup. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425.) Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court." This case comes before us on a certificate of division of opinion between the judges holding the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York arising after verdict of guilty, and before judgment, on a motion in arrest of judgment. The prisoner, William Rauscher, was indicted by a grand jury, for that on the 9th day of October, 1884, on the high seas, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state of the United States, and within 82 "The first case in America in which the question of the duty of the extradition of criminals, independently of any treaty obligations, was discussed, was that of the Chevalier de Longchamps in 1784. [Respublica v. De Longchamps, 1 Dallas, 120, 1 L. Ed. 59 (1784)]. 申 "It must be remembered, in explanation of the President's action in this matter, and perhaps of the severity of the sentence, that at this time there was special political reason in America for the desire to keep on good terms with France. The decision, however, upon the question of extradition was clearly right. No treaty required the rendition of the offender; his offence could only technically be called an offence against the King of France; the assault was committed on American soil, and the whole matter was clearly within the cognisance of American tribunals." Sir Edward Clarke, A Treatise upon the Law of Extradition, 34, 35-36 (1903). 83 Part of Mr. Justice Miller's opinion, the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Waite, are omitted. the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction thereof, he, the said William Rauscher, being then and there second mate of the ship J. F. Chapman, unlawfully made an assault upon Janssen, one of the crew of the vessel of which he was an officer, and unlawfully inflicted upon said Janssen cruel and unusual punishment. This indictment was found under § 5347 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The statement of the division of opinion between the judges is in the following language: "This cause coming on to be heard at this term, before judgment upon the verdict, on a motion in arrest of judgment, and also on a motion for a new trial before the two judges above mentioned, at such hearing the following questions occurred: "First. The prisoner having been extradited upon a charge of murder on the high seas of one Janssen, under section 5339, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. § 10445), had the Circuit Court of the Southern District of New York jurisdiction to put him to trial upon an indictment under section 5347, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. § 10464), charging him with cruel and unusual punishment of the same man, he being one of the crew of an American vessel of which the defendant was an officer, and such punishment consisting of the identical acts proved in the extradition proceedings? * The treaty with Great Britain, under which the defendant was surrendered by that government to ours upon a charge of murder, is that of August 9, 1842, styled "A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the final suppression of the African slave trade, and for the giving up of criminals, fugitive from justice, in certain cases." 8 Stat. 576. With the exception of this caption, the tenth article of the treaty contains all that relates to the subject of extradition of criminals. That article is here copied, 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 commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged paper, committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum, or shall be found, within the territories of the other provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime or offence had there been committed; and the respective judges and other magistrates of the two Governments shall have power, jurisdiction, and authority, upon complaint made under oath, to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive or person so charged, that he may be brought before such judges or other magistrates, respectively, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and considered; and if, on such hearing, the evidence be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the duty of the examining judge or magistrate to certify the same to the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for the surrender of such fugitive." Not only has the general subject of the extradition of persons, charged with crime in one country, who have fled to and sought refuge in another, been matter of much consideration of late years by the executive departments and statesmen of the governments of the civilized portion of the world, by various publicists and writers on international law, and by specialists on that subject, as well as by the courts and judicial tribunals of different countries, but the precise questions arising under this treaty, as presented by the certificate of the judges in this case, have recently been very much discussed in this country, and in Great Britain. It is only in modern times that the nations of the earth have imposed upon themselves the obligation of delivering up these fugitives from justice to the states where their crimes were committed, for trial and punishment. This has been done generally by treaties made by one independent government with another. Prior to these treaties, and apart from them, it may be stated as the general result of the writers upon international law, that there was no well-defined obligation on one country to deliver up such fugitives to another, and though such delivery was often made, it was upon the principle of comity, and within the discretion of the government whose action. was invoked; and it has never been recognized as among those obligations of one government towards another which rest upon established principles of international law. Whether in the United States, in the absence of any treaty on the subject with a foreign nation from whose justice a fugitive may be found in one of the states, and in the absence of any act of Congress upon the subject, a state can, through its own judiciary or executive, surrender him for trial to such foreign nation, is a question which has been under consideration by the courts of this country without any very conclusive result. * 84 Fortunately, this question, with others which might arise in the absence of treaties or acts of Congress on the subject, is now of very. 84 The learned Justice here cited and discussed the following cases: In the Matter of Daniel Washburn, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 106, 8 Am. Dec. 548 (1819), in which Chancellor Kent held it to be the duty of the state to surrender fugitive criminals; Com. ex rel. Short v. Deacon, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 125 (1823), in which Chief Justice Tilghman held the contrary opinion; Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 10 L. Ed. 579 (1840), in which the Supreme Court was divided on the question; and Ex parte Holmes, 12 Vt. 631 (1840), and People v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 321, 10 Am. Rep. 483 (1872), holding that an act of a state authorizing the surrender of fugitives from justice was in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. little importance, since, with nearly all the nations of the world with whom our relations are such that fugitives from justice may be found within their dominions or within ours, we have treaties which govern the rights and conduct of the parties in such cases. These treaties are also supplemented by acts of Congress, and both are in their nature exclusive. The case we have under consideration arises under one of these treaties made between the United States and Great Britain, the country with which, on account of our intimate relations, the cases requiring extradition, are likely to be most numerous. This treaty of 1842 is supplemented by the Acts of Congress of August 12, 1848, 9 Stat. 302, and March 3, 1869, 15 Stat. 337 (Comp. St. §§ 10121-10123) the provisions of which are embodied in sections 5270, 5272 and 5275 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. §§ 10110, 10118, 10121), under title LXVI, Extradition. The treaty of 1842 being, therefore, the supreme law of the land, which the courts are bound to take judicial notice of and to enforce in any appropriate proceeding the rights of persons growing out of that treaty, we proceed to inquire, in the first place, so far as pertinent to the question certified by the circuit judges, into the true construction of the treaty. We have already seen that, according to the doctrine of publicists and writers on international law, the country receiving the offender against its laws from another country had no right to proceed against him for any other offense than that for which he had been delivered up. This is a principle which commends itself as an appropriate adjunct to the discretionary exercise of the power of rendition because it can hardly be supposed that a government which was under no treaty obligation nor any absolute obligation of public duty to seize a person who had found an asylum within its bosom and turn him over to another country for trial, would be willing to do this, unless a case was made of some specific offence, of a character which justified the government in depriv ing the party of his asylum. It is unreasonable that the country of the asylum should be expected to deliver up such person to be dealt with by the demanding government without any limitation, implied or otherwise, upon its prosecution of the party. In exercising its discretion, it might be very willing to deliver up offenders against such laws as were essential to the protection of life, liberty and person, while it would not be willing to do this on account of minor misdemeanors or of a certain class of political offenses in which it would have no interest or sympathy. Accordingly, it has been the policy of all governments to grant an asylum to persons who have fled from their homes on account of political disturbances and who might be there amenable to laws framed with regard to such subjects, and to the personal allegiance of the party. In many of the treaties of extradition between the civilized nations of the world, there is an express exclusion of the right to demand the extradition of offenders against such laws, and in none of them is this class of offenses mentioned as being the foundation of extradition proceedings. Indeed, the enumeration of offenses in most of these treaties, and especially in the treaty now under consideration, is so specific, and marked by such a clear line in regard to the magnitude and importance of those offenses, that it is impossible to give any other interpretation to it than that of the exclusion of the right of extradition for any others. It is, therefore, very clear that this treaty did not intend to depart in this respect from the recognized public law which had prevailed in the absence of treaties, and that it was not intended that this treaty should be used for any other purpose than to secure the trial of the person extradited for one of the offenses enumerated in the treaty. This is not only apparent from the general principle that the specific enumeration of certain matters and things implies the exclusion of all others, but the entire face of the treaty, including the processes by which it is to be carried into effect, confirms this view of the subject. It is unreasonable to suppose that any demand for rendition framed upon a general representation to the government of the asylum (if we may use such an expression) that the party for whom the demand was made was guilty of some violation of the laws of the country which demanded him, without specifying any particular offense with which he was charged, and even without specifying an offense mentioned in the treaty, would receive any serious attention; and yet such is the effect of the construction that the party is properly liable to trial for any other offense than that for which he was demanded, and which is described in the treaty. There would, under that view of the subject, seem to be no need of a description of a specific offense in making the demand. But, so far from this being admissible the treaty not only provides that the party shall be charged with one of the crimes mentioned, to wit, murder; assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, arson, robbery, forgery or the utterance of forged paper, but that evidence shall be produced to the judge or magistrate of the country of which such demand is made, of the commission of such an offense, and that this evidence shall be such as according to the law of that country would justify the apprehension and commitment for trial of the person so charged. If the proceedings under which the party is arrested in a country where he is peaceably and quietly living, and to the protection of whose laws he is entitled, are to have no influence in limiting. the prosecution in the country where the offense is charged to have been committed, there is very little use for this particularity in charging a specific offense, requiring that offense to be one mentioned in the treaty, as well as sufficient evidence of the party's guilt to put him upon trial for it. Nor can it be said that, in the exercise of such a delicate power under a treaty so well guarded in every particular, its |