Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

121

*120

The writ was issued and a return made, | United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, denying many of the allegations of the peti- 30 L. ed. 425, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234. Subsetion, and, after hearing, it was finally dis- quently to the treaty, Great Britain passed missed, and the plaintiff in error remanded the extradition act of 1870 (32 and 33 to the custody of the sheriff. 154 Fed. 980. Vict. chap. 52), and also in 1873 an act to amend the extradition act of 1870 (36 and

Mr. George D. Collins in propria per sona for plaintiff in error and appellant. Mr. William Hoff Cook for defendants in error and appellees.

*Mr. Justice Peckham after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion

of the court:

The objections which the plaintiff in error urges to his further imprisonment are founded upon what he insists is implied from the provisions of the treaties between the United States and Great Britain (18421889 [8 Stat. at L. 572, 26 Stat. at L. 1508]), and he contends that, under those treaties, the state of California had no right or jurisdiction to try him for any offense whatever other than the one for which he was extradited and delivered to the Gov ernment of the United States for trial, even though he committed an offense subsequently to the extradition; and he further asserts that after a trial has been had for the of fense for which he was extradited, he is entitled to be afforded reasonable time and opportunity after his final release on that charge to return to the country of asylum, and that the trial of the crime for which he was extradited must be had within a rea

[ocr errors]

sonable time after his extradition, or he is, for that reason, entitled to his discharge. In other words, the plaintiff in error claims immunity, under the treaties, from arrest or detention for any crime committed by him after he had been brought back upon the extradition warrant until he has been allowed a reasonable time to return to the place from which he was taken. He contends that the duty originally resting upon the demanding country to try him only for the offense for which he was extradited, and to then afford him reasonable opportunity to return, is unaffected by the fact that he committed another crime after his extradition.

The treaty of 1842, August 9 (8 Stat. at L. 576, § 10), is the one in regard to which discussions as to its meaning have arisen.

any foreign government to an agent of the United States, for the purpose of being brought within the United States and tried for any crime of which he is duly accused, the President shall have power to take all necessary measures for the transportation and safe-keeping of such accused person, and for his security against lawless violence, until the final conclusion of his trial

[ocr errors]

37 Vict. chap. 60). Both these acts are

cited as the extradition acts of 1870 and 1873. See 1 Moore, Extradition, 1891, pp. 741, 755. In subdivision 2 of § 3 of the act of 1870 it is provided: "(2) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a the law of that state, or by arrangement, foreign state unless provision is made by that the fugitive criminal shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity be detained or tried in that foreign state of returning to her Majesty's dominions, for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."

Article 3 of the treaty or convention of 1889, July 12, between Great Britain and at L. 1508, 1509, and is also, among others, the United States, is to be found in 26 Stat. set out in Johnson v. Browne, 205 U. S. 309, 319, 51 L. ed. 816, 819, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 542, 10 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 636, surrendered by or to either of the high con638, as follows: "Article 3. No person tracting parties shall be triable or be tried for any crime or offense committed prior to his extradition, other than the offense for which he was surrendered, until he shall the country from which he was have had an opportunity of returning to dered." The treatment of the criminal for all acts committed or said to have been committed by him prior to extradition is thus fully provided for.

surren

that the duty to afford opportunity to re*The contention of the plaintiff in error turn after a trial or other termination of unaffected by any subsequent crime he may the case upon which he was extradited is have committed is not Nothing in the Rauscher Case (supra) is even plausible. authority for any such contention. duty to afford opportunity to return after The trial, as stated, is limited to matters which happened before extradition; and, in the nature of things, such duty cannot be extended by implication so as to cover a totally different state of facts. Because, in for the crimes or offenses specified in the warrant of extradition, and until his final discharge from custody or imprisonment for or on account of such crimes or offenses, and for a reasonable time thereafter, and may employ such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as may be necessary for the safe-keeping and protection of the accused."

some cases, in construing the treaty, it has been stated that a person extradited can be tried only for the offense for which he was surrendered for trial until he has had an opportunity of returning, it is assumed by the plaintiff in error that such language prohibits the trial of a person so extradited for any crime committed by him subsequently as well as prior to the surrender, without an opportunity for his return to the other country. The whole question is simply one as to the meaning of the treaty, and we cannot doubt for a single moment what that meaning is.

on the Law of Extradition, says, at page 84, that the party extradited is not "protected against trial for any offenses which he may commit against the receiving government subsequently to his extradition, and while in its custody, or after his discharge therefrom." Such a criminal has no asylum, because he never had an asylum within the jurisdiction of the government delivering him, with regard to the crime which he committed since such delivery. Ibid.

The contention is also without merit that he has, at any rate, the right to a trial to a conclusion of the case for which he was extradited, before he can be tried for a crime subsequently committed. The matter lies within the jurisdiction of the state whose laws he has violated since his extra

Much is said by the plaintiff in error as to his right to an asylum, as if it inhered in himself. The right is, however, simply provided for by treaty, and must be found therein, so far alone as the criminal is con-dition, and we cannot see that it is a matter cerned. of any interest to the surrendering government.

The question then is, does either the treaty or convention, by express provision or by inference, provide for a return of the criminal to the surrendering country after his surrender, and after a subsequent commission of a crime in the country to which he was surrendered? To ask the question is to answer it. The plaintiff in error contends for the treaty right to leave the country, notwithstanding his commission of the subsequent crime. This we cannot assent to. It is impossible to conceive of representatives of two civilized countries solemnly entering into a treaty of extradition, and therein providing that a criminal surrendered according to demand, for a crime that he has committed, if, subsequently to his со surrender, he is guilty of murder or treason

or other crime, is, nevertheless, to have the right guaranteed to him to return unmolested to the country which surrendered him. We can imagine no country, by treaty, as desirous of exacting such a condition of surrender, or any country as willing to accept it. When a treaty or statute contains a provision that the party surrendered shall be tried for no other offense until he has had an opportunity to leave the country, the meaning of such a provision is perfectly plain, and must receive a reasonable and sensible construction. The party proceeded against must not be tried for any other offense existing at the time when he was extradited (whether, at the time of such extradition, it had or had not been discovered), until he shall have had a reasonable time to return to the country from which he was taken, after his trial or other termination of the proceeding. That such privilege should be acorded to one who commits a crime after his surrender to a demanding government lacks all semblance of reason

or sense.

Spear, in the second edition of his work

There is nothing in the section of the U. S. Rev. Stat., supra, which gives the least countenance to the claims of the plaintiff in error.

*The other objections made by him in regard to the person who now has him in custody under the various warrants and processes, copies of which are returned in the record, we regard as unimportant.

As soon as the judgments herein are affirmed the plaintiff in error will, of course, pursuant to the judgment entered upon the verdict of conviction against him, be taken to the state prison in California, provided for in the sentence, and there confined according to law. The orders and judgments in the two cases are affirmed.

(214 U. S. 82) JULIAN E. WOODWELL, Appt.,

V.

UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES (§ 39*)-OFFICERS-COM-
PENSATION-EXTRA SERVICES.

Compensation for the services of an inspector of electric light plants in the Treasury Department, rendered in connection with the installation of an electric light plant for the buildings of the Interior Department, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, and by the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, is forbidden by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1765, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1207, although such services were valuable, and were performed after hours, and in addition to a full discharge of regular duties, since the case is one of the performance of extra services which the law did not specially require, and for which it did not fix the of two distinct places, offices, or employremuneration, and not a case of the filling ments.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see United States, Dec. Dig. 39.*]

[No. 143.]

For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

124

Argued April 8, 12, 1909. Decided May, such matters, may be authorized to prepare

A

17, 1909.

PPEAL from the Court of Claims to review a judgment dismissing a petition to recover for extra services rendered

by an inspector of electric light plants in the Treasury Department. Affirmed.

See same case below, 41 Ct. Cl. 357.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. William H. Robeson for appel-

lant.

[blocks in formation]

This appeal is from a judgment of the court of claims, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant to recover from the United States the sum of $3,675. 41 Ct. Cl. 357. From the findings of the court below the facts upon which the claim was based are substantially as follows: Wood well, the appellant, is by profession a mechanical and electrical engineer. From a date prior to March 3, 1901, up to the time of the bring. ing of this suit, he was an inspector of electric light plants under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, receiving a salary of $2,000 per annum. In the sundry civil act, approved March 3, 1901, the following appropriation was made (31 Stat. at L. 1156, chap. 853):

"For the establishment of an electric lighting plant for buildings occupied by offices of the Department of the Interior, the Patent Office building, the old Postoffice building, now occupied by the General Land and Indian Bureaus, and the Pension Office building, and for improvement in the heating of the Patent Office buildings, including necessary conduits, the laying and construction of which are hereby authorized, $74,000."

On March 11, 1901, the Secretary of the Interior sent to the Secretary of the Treasury a communication in which, after reciting the terms of the appropriation act above referred to, he said:

"When this item was under consideration, the committee on appropriation of the House of Representatives secured, through the Assistant Superintended of the Treasury, the itemized estimate of cost of the proposed work, upon which the amount of apropriation is based, and, all the hearing before the committee, it was also indicated by members thereof that it would be expected that the projected work should conform to the estimate and the general plan outlined therein.

detailed plans and specifications, upon which proposals for the work contemplated in the appropriation may be called for at an early date."

Treasury, acknowledging the receipt of this On March 14, 1901, the Secretary of the letter, said:

"In reply you are informed that the work specifications can be performed under the incident to the preparation of the plans and office, who is familiar with the requiresupervision of a qualified employee of this ments; but, as the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who cannot be supplied from the regular force of this Department without detriment* to its business, it is assumed that such service can be paid for from the appropriation provided for the installation of the plant. Such expense will not exceed $500, including the expense incident to a general inspection of the work during the period of the installation.

"It is the judgment of this Department that the installation can be completed in all its details, in the most satisfactory manner, without exceeding the limits of the appropriation provided therefor,—namely, $74,000.”

In answering this letter the Secretary of the Interior said:

"Referring to your letter of March 14, 1901, in which you state that, in compliance with the request of this Department, a competent person connected with the Treasury Department will be authorized to prepare necessary plans and specifications covering the installation of the electric lighting plant for the buildings of this Department, and to your suggestion that the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who cannot be supplied from the regular force of the Treasury Department, and which would involve an expense not to exceed $500, which would include the expense incident to the general inspection of the work during the period of installation, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, to whom the matter was submitted by this Department, in which the conclusion is reached that prior to July 1, 1901, the preliminary expenses necessary to carry into effect the appropriation for the electric lighting plant may be incurred, although payment therefor cannot be made previous to that date.

"The Department would be glad to have the preliminary work commenced at the earliest practical date, and would be pleased "I have, therefore, to request that, if prac- to consider any recommendations as to the ticable, some competent person connected employment of the services of draftsmen, with the Treasury Department, expert in l etc., referred to in your letter. If such 29 S. C.-37.

28.

services cannot be procured upon the terms | Secretary of the Interior was received by named by the Comptroller, it is believed Mr. Woodwell:

that it can, in the meantime, be furnished by detail from some branch of this Department."

*And on May 10, 1901, the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Secretary of the Interior as follows:

"Referring to your letter of May 8, 1901, you are informed that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, has been directed to confer with E. M. Dawson, chief clerk, Department of the Interior, relative to the installation of an electric light, heat, and power plant in the old Postoffice Department building of this city."

Subsequently, the Secretary of the Interior made the following order, an official copy of which was sent to Mr. Woodwell through the Secretary of the Treasury:

Order.

Department of the Interior, Washington, June 21, 1901. A board to consist of Mr. Edward M. Dawson, chief clerk of the Department, Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, Treasury Department, and Mr. Joseph S. Hill, engineer, etc., 'General Postoffice,' is hereby constituted to, from time to time, open bids and recommend awards of contracts for the work embraced in the installation of the electric lighting plant for the buildings of the Interior Department and in the improvement of the heating of the Patent Office building.

The board will meet at the office of the chief clerk of the Department at such time is may be designated by advertisements for opening proposals for the work.

On November 23, 1901, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury sent the following communication:

"Referring to your letter of November 21, 1901, requesting that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, Treasury Department, be instructed to conduct a test of the engines and dynamos being manufactured by the Ridgeway Dynamo & Engine Company, Ridgeway, Pennsylvania, for the Interior Department, I have the honor to state that, owing to prior and important instructions, it will be impractical for *Mr. Woodwell to make the test the 25th instant, as desired by you.

"You are advised, however, that, if the matter can be held in abeyance until December 2, 1901, Mr. Woodwell will be instructed to make the test."

Department of the Interior, Washington, January 2, 1902. Permission having been obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury for you to perform such service, you are hereby authorized and directed to proceed to Ridgeway, Pennsylvania, as the representative of this department at shop tests to be made, commencing on Monday next, the 6th instant, of the engines and dynamos to be furnished by the Ridgeway Dynamo & Engine Company, under contract with this Department.

There is herewith inclosed, for your information and guidance, a copy of the specifications of the contract, wherein it is proVided that "the regulation, guaranteed efficiency, heating effect, and insulation resistance shall be determined by actual test in the presence of the department's authorized inspector, who shall determine test conditions. The tests to be made at the shops where the dynamos are constructed, upon due notification by contractors of their readiness to commence said test, and at the expense of the contractor, except traveling and other necessary expenses of Department's agent. layed or require repetition for any reason for which the contractor is justly responsible, the cost of the delayed or any subsequent test, including the traveling and other necessary expenses of the Department's agent, shall be at the expense of the con

tractor."

Should the test be de

ent Office), will be detailed to accompany Mr. L. K. Sager, of this Department (Patyou and assist in making the tests.

Your actual expenses while engaged upon this service will be paid by this Department upon presentation of proper accounts and vouchers from funds available.

Because of the foregoing correspondence, Mr. Woodwell, as a mechanical and electrical engineer, performed certain services in and about the installation of said electric lighting and heating plant, between the 10th day of May, 1901, and the 1st day of February, 1902, and devoted 897 hours to said service, and also necessarily expended $110

in connection therewith.

Woodwell outside of his regular office hours The services rendered were performed by as an employee in the Treasury Department, and during the time when the services were rendered he also fully discharged his duties as such employee of the Treasury Department.

While the court of claims declared that the facts above recited presented a strong Thereafter the following from the Acting equitable case in favor of the claimant, en

98.

titling him to a reasonable allowance if au-, tion by way of salary or otherwise, which is thority of law existed therefor, it neverthe- intended to cover all the services which, as less entered judgment for the government such officer, he may be called upon to render, upon the ground that the law-as con- from receiving extra compensation, additained in §§ 1763, 1764, and 1765 of the tional allowances or pay for other services Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, which may be required of him either by act pp. 1205-1207), copied in the margin- of Congress or by order of the head of his forbade the awarding of any compensation. department, or in any other mode added to It was held that the facts did not make out or connected with the regular duties of the a case of the holding by one person at the place which he holds; but that they have same time of two distinct offices, places, or no application to the case of two distinct employments, each having its own duties offices, places, or employments, each of which and its own compensation, but was merely a has its own duties and its own compensacase of the performance of extra services by tion, which offices may both be held by one a government employee, for the performance person at the same time. In the latter case of which, even if it be assumed that there he is, in the eye of the law, two officers, or was authority of law therefor, nevertheless holds two places or appointments, the functhere was no "appropriation therefor ex- tions of which are separate and distinct, plicitly stating that it was for such addi- and, according to all the decisions, he is, in tional pay, extra allowance, or compensa- such case, entitled to recover the two comtion." pensations. In the former case, he performs We see no reason to doubt the correctness the added duties under his appointment to a of the reasoning and conclusion of the court single place, and the statute has provided below. A succinct history of the legislation that he shall receive no additional compenrespecting the question of extra compensa-sation for that class of duties unless it is tion for government employees is contained so provided by special legislation." in the case of United States v. King, 147 U. Not only was there no specific provision in S. 676, 679-681, 37 L. ed. 328-330, 13 Sup. the appropriation for the employment and Ct. Rep. 439. The decision of this case does compensation of an electrical engineer to not require that we should restate that his prepare plans and supervise the construction tory. If the facts presented by the record be- and installation of the plant in question, but fore us exhibit a case merely of the perform the correspondence does not permit an inferances of extra services, and not one of the ence that it was the intention of the Departfilling of two distinct places, offices, or em- ment of the Interior to call upon Mr. Woodployments, payment for such extra service well to fill a separate and distinct office or is plainly prohibited by the terms of § 1765, employment from that which he already Rev. Stat. That section was taken from held under the government. The letter of two statutes, the first passed March 3, 1839 the Secretary of the Interior of date March (5 Stat. at L. 349, chap. 83, U. S. Comp. 11, 1901, imports that the estimate upon Stat. 1901, p. 1207), and the second August which the appropriation was based was 23, 1842 (5 Stat. at L. 510, chap. 183, U. S. made upon the assumption that such work Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1207), and may be as was desired to be performed by the exconsidered to be, to some extent, in pari perts requested from the Treasury Departmateria with §§ 1763 and 1764. United ment would be without extra cost to the States v. Saunders, 120 U. S. 126, 30 L. ed. government, and the whole correspondence 594, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467. As said in the tends to negate the conception of either an Saunders Case, speaking of §§ 1763-1765: express or implied contract between the Sec"Taking these sections all together, the retary of the Interior and Mr. Woodwell, by purpose of this legislation was to prevent which the latter was to perform services for a person holding an office or appointment for which he was to be especially compensated which the law provides a definite compensa-out or the appropriation in question or otherSec. 1763. No person who holds an office, | may be required to perform, unless expressthe salary or annual compensation attached to which amounts to the sum of two thous and, five hundred dollars, shall receive compensation for discharging the duties of any other office, unless expressly authorized by

law.

Sec. 1764. No allowance or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk, by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other department; and no allowance or compensation shall be made for any extra services whatever which any officer or clerk

ly authorized by law.

Sec. 1765. No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulations, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such addi tional pay, extra allowance, or compensa. tion.

« AnteriorContinuar »