the means for obtaining the testimony The word "trial" is confined to such a preliminary hearing as was already allowable under the existing practice, that is, a hearing having reference only to a commitment for future trial. In re Wadge, (1883) 15 Fed. 864. Adjournment. In In re Wadge, (1883) 16, Fed. 332, it was held that the commissioners' refusal to grant an adjournment to enable the accused to procure depositions from England to show alibi, was, under the circumstances, a legitimate exercise of discretion. an SEC. 4. [Witness fees, costs, etc., certified to and paid by Secretary of State, etc.] That all witness fees and costs of every nature in cases of extradition, including the fees of the commissioner, shall be certified by the judge or commissioner before whom the hearing shall take place to the Secretary of State of the United States, who is hereby authorized to allow the payment thereof out of the appropriation to defray the expenses of the judiciary; and the Secretary of State shall cause the amount of said fees and costs so allowed to be reimbursed to the Government of the United States by the foreign government by whom the proceedings for extradition may have been instituted. [22 Stat. L. 216.] SEC. 5. [Evidence on hearing.] That in all cases where any depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof shall be offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case under Title sixty-six of the Revised Statutes of the United States, such depositions, warrants, and other papers, or the copies thereof, shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped, and the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that any deposition, warrant or other paper or copies thereof, so offered, are authenticated in the manner required by this act. [22 Stat. L. 216.] When papers purporting to be depositions admitted.- Papers which purport to be depositions, and which are authenticated as required under this section, may be admitted on the hearing, notwithstanding the recitals in the introductory part show that they are not depositions, but only statements. In re Ezeta, (1894) 62 Fed. 972. Section applies only to papers offered by prosecution.- This section applies only to papers or copies thereof which are offered in evidence by the prosecution to establish the criminality of the person apprehended, and does not apply to documents or depositions offered on the part of the accused any more than did the provisions of R. S. sec. 5271, supra, p. 281, either as originally enacted or as amended by the Act of June 19, 1876. In re Cortes, (1890) 136 U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 464. Effect of section on mode of authentication. This Act makes the consular certificate the final and controlling guide in determining the admissibility of testimony before the extradition commissioner. When the documentary evidence has been authenticated as required by the statute, it is admissible, leaving to the commissioner merely the question of determining the sufficiency of the evidence therein contained. Ex p. Schorer, (E. D. Wis. 1912) 197 Fed. 67. In international extradition proceedings documents authenticated as required by law are admissible in evidence without being sworn to. Ex p. La Mantia, (S. D. N. Y. 1913) 206 Fed. 330. This section restores in substance the provisions of the Act of June 22, 1860, ch. 184, 12 Stat. L. 84, as to the mode of authentication, and supersedes the provisions on that subject of R. S. sec. 5271, supra, p. 281, as well as those of the Act of June 19, 1876, 19 Stat. L. 59, ch. 133, noted supra, p. 282. In re Behrendt, (1884) 22 Fed. 699; In re McPhun, (1887) 30 Fed. 57. When requirements of section complied with. Where the documents were properly authenticated for the purpose of being used in extradition proceedings, and the signature was verified by oral proof, and the documents would be received in similar proceedings in the demanding country, it was held that the requirements of this section had been complied with. In re Wadge, (1883) 15 Fed. 864 [following In re Henrich, (1867) 5 Blatchf. 414, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,369; In re Farez, (1870) 7 Blatchf. 345, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,645; Matter of Fowler, (1880) 18 Blatchf. (U. S.) 430]. 66 The words "for similar purposes " in this section must receive the same construction they received under the Act of June 22, 1860, ch. 184, 12 Stat. L. 84 (now R. S. sec. 5271, supra, p. 281), namely, as evidence of criminality," the same construction having been given to similar words in prior statutes. In re Cortes, (1890) 136 U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 464, following In re McPhun, (1887) 30 Fed. 57. To the same effect see In re Henrich, (1867) 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 414, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,369; In re Farez, (1870) 7 Blatchf. (U. S.) 345, 8 Fed. Cas. No. 4,645; In re Charleston, (1888) 34 Fed. 531; In re Grin, (1901) 112 Fed. 790. The certificate of the principal diplomatic officer is sufficient if it follows the language of the statute, and the adding of the words " as evidence" will not vitiate it. Grin v. Shine, (1902) 187 U. S. 181, 23 S. Ct. 98, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 130. The certificate of the consul, if it be conformable to the Act, is of itself absolute proof that the papers so certified are receivable in the foreign country in proof of criminality; but if not conformable to the Act, resort may then be had to any oral or other proof competent to show that the documents presented are so authenticated as to entitle them to be received as evidence of criminality in the foreign country. In re Wadge, (1883) 16 Fed. 332; In re McPhun, (1887) 30 Fed. 57. It need not appear by the consul's certificate that the depositions or documentary evidence would be competent on the trial of the accused in the foreign tribunal, if sufficient to authorize his arrest. In re Wadge, (1883) 16 Fed. 332. By vice-consul.- Where the depositions in an extradition matter were authenticated by the United States vice-consul, such authentication was held sufficient under this Act, a vice-consul being an acting consul and not a deputy. In re Herres, (1887) 33 Fed. 165; In re Orpen, (1898) 86 Fed. 760, holding that the court will take judicial notice that the chargé d'affaires ad interim, by whom the papers were signed, was, at the time, the principal diplomatic officer in the foreign country. Certificate insufficient. Where the certificate of the consul stated that 'all and every the certified copies hereunto attached are properly and legally authenticated and certified according to the law in force in British India, so as to enable them to be used in evidence and as proof that the originals were duly received in evidence in proof of the criminality of the accused, it was held that such certificate was not sufficient, as the words following the expression used in evidence " were a definition of the purposes for which the copies might be received, namely, as evidence that certain originals were on file, which originals had been duly received in evidence in British India as proof of criminality, which is an entirely different thing from what the statute requires. In re McPhun, (1887) 30 Fed. 57. 66 Will supply prior defects.-The final certificate of the United States minister will supply defects, if any, in the certificates of foreign officials to the same documents. In re Behrendt, (1884) 22 Fed. 699; In re Krojanker, (1890) 44 Fed. 482. 66 Proof of allowance of copies.- Proof need not be given, in addition to the certificate of the consul, that the law of the demanding country would allow copies of original depositions taken before a magistrate to be received as competent proof against the accused for the purposes of commitment." In re Charleston, (1888) 34 Fed. 531. When no review by habeas corpus.-Where the evidence has been properly certified under this section, its sufficiency to establish the criminality of the accused for the purpose of extradition cannot be reviewed upon habeas corpus. Grin v. Shine, (1902) 187 U. S. 191, 23 S. Ct. 98, 47 U. S. (L. ed.) 130, following In re Cortes, (1890) 136 U. S. 330, 10 S. Ct. 1031, 34 U. S. (L. ed.) 464; In re Wadge, (1883) 16 Fed. 332, holding that if the depositions and proofs present a sufficient case to the commissioner for the exercise of his judicial discretion, his judgment cannot be reviewed. Of the effect of the evidence authenticated according to this Act "it was the judicial duty of the commissioner to judge, and neither the duty nor the power to review his action thereon has been conferred upon any other judicial officer. If he deems it sufficient, the statute prescribes his further action in the premises. It then rests with the executive authority to determine, in the last resort, what is demanded by justice and the obligations of the treaty. If it appears to the President, upon a review of all the evidence, that the charge is not sustained, and that justice and the obligation of the treaty do not require the surrender of the prisoners, he can refuse it, and they can be set at liberty, either under the provisions of section 5273, [supra, p. 283] of the Re vised Statutes, or in any other appropriate manner." In re Vandervelpen, (1877) 14 Blatchf. 137, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,844. Unsworn statements certified by the United States ambassador and the chargé d'affaires to be authenticated properly and legally so as to be received for similar purposes by tribunals of the country from which the accused has fled are, by the express terms of this section, admissible in evidence in extradition proceedings. Elias v. Ramirez, (1910) 215 U. S. 398, 30 S. Ct. 131, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 253, reversing (1907) 11 Ariz. 256, 90 Pac. 323. SEC. 6. [Repeal.] The act approved June nineteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-six, entitled "An act to amend section fifty-two hundred and seventy-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States ", and so much of said section fifty-two hundred and seventy-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States as is inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed. [22 Stat. L. 216.] The Act of June 19, 1876, ch. 133, mentioned in the text amended R. S. sec. 5271, supra, p. 281. [SEC. 1.] [Fees and costs out of what appropriations payable.] That from and after June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and three, all the fees and costs in extradition cases shall be paid out of the appropriations to defray the expenses of the judiciary, and the Attorney-General shall certify to the Secretary of State the amounts to be paid to the United States on account of said fees and costs in extradition cases by the foreign government requesting the extradition, and the Secretary of State shall cause said amounts to be collected and transmitted to the Attorney-General for deposit in the Treasury of the United States. [32 Stat. L. 475.] This is from the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of June 28, 1902, ch. 1301. FALSE ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS See PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FALSE PERSONATION See PENAL LAWS FALSE STAMPING Act of Feb. 21, 1905, ch. 720, 316. Sec. 1. Stamping" United States Assay" on Gold, etc., Unlawful, 316. 2. Penalty for Violation, 316. 3. Seizure, Forfeiture, etc., 317. Act of June 13, 1906, ch. 3289 ("Hallmark Act" Act"), 317. "Jewelers' Liability Sec. 1. Gold and Silver Articles - Interstate, etc., Transmission of Falsely Stamped, Forbidden, 317. 2. Gold Articles Deviation from Marked Fineness Allowed Tests Actual Fineness Required, 317. 3. Silver Articles - Deviation from Marked Fineness Allowed Sterling" Goods "Coin" Goods Tests Actual Fineness Required, 318. Divergence Permitted 4. Plated Goods - Description Required Use of "Sterling" or "Coin" Forbidden, 319. 6. "Article of Merchandise" Defined, 320. 7. Original Packages Not Exempt from State, etc., Laws, 320. An Act To prevent the use of devices calculated to convey the impression that the United States Government certifies to the quality of gold or silver used in the arts. [Act of Feb. 21, 1905, ch. 720, 33 Stat. L. 732.] [SEC. 1.] [Stamping "United States Assay" on gold, etc., unlawful.] That it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, association, or corporation engaged in commerce among the several States, Territories, District of Columbia, and possessions of the United States, or with any foreign country, to stamp any gold, silver, or goods manufactured therefrom, and which are intended and used in such commerce, with the words "United States assay," or with any words, phrases, or devices calculated to convey the impression that the United States Government has certified to the fineness or quality of such gold or silver, or of the gold or silver contained in any of the goods manufactured therefrom. Each and every such stamp shall constitute a separate offense. [33 Stat. L. 732.] SEC. 2. [Penalty for violation.] That every person, partnership, association, or corporation violating the provisions of this Act, and every officer, director, or managing agent of such partnership, association, or corporation having knowledge of such violation and directly participating in such violation or consenting thereto, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, be punished with a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court. [33 Stat. L. 732.] SEC. 3. [Seizure, forfeiture, etc.] That any gold, silver, or goods manufactured therefrom after the date of the passage of this Act, bearing any of the stamps, words, phrases, or devices prohibited to be used under section one hereof, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to or from a Territory, the District of Columbia, or possessions of the United States, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. [33 Stat. L. 732.] An Act Forbidding the importation, exportation, or carriage in interstate commerce of falsely or spuriously stamped articles of merchandise made of gold or silver or their alloys, and for other purposes. [Act of June 13, 1906, ch. 3289, 34 Stat. L. 260.] [SEC. 1.] [Gold and silver articles-interstate, etc., transmission of falsely stamped, forbidden.] That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association, being a manufacturer of or wholesale or retail dealer in gold or silver jewelry or gold ware, silver goods or silverware, or for any officer, manager, director, or agent of such firm, corporation, or association to import or export or cause to be imported into or exported from the United States for the purpose of selling or disposing of the same, or to deposit or cause to be deposited in the United States mails for transmission thereby, or to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common carrier for transportation from one State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or to said District, in interstate commerce, or to transport or cause to be transported from one State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or from the District of Columbia, to any other State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or to said District, in interstate commerce, any article of merchandise manufactured after the date when this Act takes effect and made in whole or in part of gold or silver, or any alloy of either of said metals, and having stamped, branded, engraved, or printed thereon, or upon any tag, card, or label attached thereto, or upon any box, package, cover, or wrapper in which said article is incased or inclosed, any mark or word indicating or designed or intended to indicate that the gold or silver or alloy of either of said metals in such article is of a greater degree of fineness than the actual fineness or quality of such gold, silver, or alloy, according to the standards and subject to the qualifications set forth in sections two and three of this Act. [34 Stat. L. 260.] This is the first section of the "Hallmark Act" or the "Jewelers' Liability Act." SEC. 2. [Gold articles deviation from marked fineness allowedtests- actual fineness required.] That in the case of articles of merchandise made in whole or in part of gold or of any of its alloys so imported |