Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Opinion of the Court.

"The establishment of the German Empire in 1871, and the complex relations of its component parts to each other and to the Empire, necessarily give rise to questions as to the treaties entered into with the North German Confederation and with many of the States composing the Empire. It cannot be said that any fixed rules have been established.

"Where a State has lost its separate existence, as in the case of Hanover and Nassau, no questions can arise.

"Where no new treaty has been negotiated with the Empire, the treaties with the various States which have preserved a separate existence have been resorted to.

"The question of the existence of the extradition treaty with Bavaria was presented to the United States District Court, on the application of a person accused of forgery committed in Bavaria, to be discharged on habeas corpus, who was in custody after the issue of a mandate, at the request of the minister of Germany. The court held that the treaty was admitted by both governments to be in existence.

"Such a question is, after all, purely a political one.”

The case there referred to is that of In re Thomas, 12 Blatch. 370, in which the continuance of the extradition treaty with Bavaria was called in question, and Mr. Justice Blatchford, then District Judge, said:

"It is further contended, on the part of Thomas, that the convention with Bavaria was abrogated by the absorption of Bavaria into the German Empire. An examination of the provisions of the Constitution of the German Empire does not disclose anything which indicates that then existing treaties between the several States composing the confederation called the German Empire, and foreign countries, were annulled, or to be considered as abrogated.

"Indeed, it is difficult to see how such a treaty as that between Bavaria and the United States can be abrogated by the action of Bavaria alone, without the consent of the United States. Where a treaty is violated by one of the contracting parties, it rests alone with the injured party to pronounce it broken, the treaty being, in such case, not absolutely void, but voidable, at the election of the injured party, who may waive

Opinion of the Court.

or remit the infraction committed, or may demand a just satisfaction, the treaty remaining obligatory if he chooses not to come to a rupture. 1 Kent's Com. 174. In the present case the mandate issued by the Government of the United States shows that the convention in question is regarded as in force both by the United States and by the German Empire, represented by its envoys, and by Bavaria, represented by the same envoy. The application of the foreign government was made through the proper diplomatic representative of the German Empire and of Bavaria, and the complaint before the commissioner was made by the proper consular authority representing the German Empire and also representing Bavaria."

We concur in the view that the question whether power remains in a foreign State to carry out its treaty obligations is in its nature political and not judicial, and that the courts ought not to interfere with the conclusions of the political department in that regard.

Treaties of extradition are executory in their character, and fall within the rule laid down by Chief Justice Marshall in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314, thus: "Our Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department."

[ocr errors]

In Doe v. Braden, 16 How. 635, 656, where it was contended that so much of the treaty of February 22, 1819, ceding Florida to the United States, as annulled a certain land grant, was void for want of power in the King of Spain to ratify such a provision, it was held that whether or not the King of Spain had power, according to the Constitution of Spain, to annul the grant, was a political and not a judicial question, and was decided when the treaty was made and ratified.

Mr. Chief Justice Taney said: "The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, un

Opinion of the Court.

less they violate the Constitution of the United States. It is their duty to interpret it and administer it according to its terms. And it would be impossible for the executive department of the Government to conduct our foreign relations with any advantage to the country, and fulfil the duties which the Constitution has imposed upon it, if every court in the country was authorized to inquire and decide whether the person who ratified the treaty on behalf of a foreign nation had the power, by its constitution and laws, to make the engagements into which he entered."

Extradition may be sufficiently defined to be the surrender by one nation to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offence outside of its own territory, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and to punish him, demands the surrender.

In the United States, the general opinion and practice have been that extradition should be declined in the absence of a conventional or legislative provision. 1 Moore on Extradition, 21; United States v. Rauscher, 119 U, S. 407.

The power to surrender is clearly included within the treaty-making power and the corresponding power of appointing and receiving ambassadors and other public ministers. Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 569. Its exercise pertains to public policy and governmental administration, is devolved on the Executive authority, and the warrant of surrender is issued by the Secretary of State as the representative of the President in foreign affairs.

If it be assumed in the case before us, and the papers presented on the motion for a stay advise us that such is the fact, that the commissioner, on hearing, deemed the evidence sufficient to sustain the charges, and certified his findings and the testimony to the Secretary of State, and a warrant for the surrender of Terlinden on the proper requisition was duly issued, it cannot be successfully contended that the courts could properly intervene on the ground that the treaty under which both governments had proceeded, had terminated by reason of the adoption of the constitution of the German Empire, notVOL. CLXXXIV-19

Syllabus.

withstanding the judgment of both governments to the contrary.

The decisions of the Executive Department in matters of extradition, within its own sphere, and in accordance with the Constitution, are not open to judicial revision, and it results that where proceedings for extradition, regularly and constitutionally taken under the acts of Congress, are pending, they cannot be put an end to by writs of habeas corpus.

The District Court was right, and its final order is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN did not hear the argument and took no part in the decision of the case

HUGULEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. GALETON COTTON MILLS.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 94. Argued January 15, 1902.-Decided February 24, 1902.

By the act of March 3, 1891, the judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are made final in all cases in which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court as originally invoked, is dependent entirely on diversity of citizenship.

If after the jurisdiction has attached on that ground, issues are raised and decided, bringing the case within either of the classes defined in section five of the act, the case may be brought directly to this court, although it may be carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals, in which event the final judgment of that court cannot be reviewed in this court as of right. If the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court rests solely on the ground that, the suit arose under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, then the jurisdiction of this court is exclusive, but if it is placed on diverse citizenship, and also on grounds independent of that, then if carried to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision of that court would not be made final by the statute.

The use of the words "or otherwise " in the statute, when it provides that cases in which the decrees or judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals

Statement of the Case.

are made final, may be brought here by "certiorari or otherwise," adds nothing to the power of this court, to so direct, as any order or writ in that behalf must be ejusdem generis with certiorari.

Pending this appeal, appellants applied for certiorari to perfect the record, on diminution suggested, which was granted, and the omissions supplied. This auxiliary writ did not operate to bring the case before the court or in itself to add any support to the appeal.

Appellants took no appeal from the Circuit Court directly to this court, even assuming that this could have been done. The sole ground on which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked was diversity of citizenship and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals was made final by the statute. This appeal therefore could not be sustained.

THIS was a bill filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia, January 21, 1891, by J. J. Robinson as trustee, who averred that he was "a citizen of and resided in the State of Alabama," "against the Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company, a corporation created under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia and a resident and citizen of said Northern District of Georgia; and against the Huguley Manufacturing Company, a corporation created under the laws of said State of Georgia, and a resident and citizen of said State of Georgia and of the Northern District of said State; and against W. T. Huguley, who your orator avers to be a citizen of said State of Georgia and residing within the said Northern District of Georgia."

The bill averred that on January 2, 1884, "the said Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company executed and delivered to said W. T. Huguley, W. C. Yancey, and your orator, as trustees, a certain deed of trust, conveying to said persons named, and to orator, all the property of the said Alabama and Georgia Manufacturing Company upon the terms and upon the trusts therein stated for the purpose of securing certain negotiable bonds of said company in the principal suin of sixty-five thousand dollars, and interest thereon, which deed of trust was accepted by said trustees and duly recorded." A copy of the trust deed was attached and conveyed certain real estate in the State of Georgia and certain real estate in the State of Alabama as therein described.

It was further averred that the bonds were duly issued by

« ForrigeFortsett »