« AnteriorContinuar »
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. cited as the extradition acts of 1870 and
Both these acts are
37 Vict. chap. 60). sona for plaintiff in error and appellant.
1873. See 1 Moore, Extradition, 1891, Mr. William Hoff Cook for defendants
pp. 741, 755. In subdivision 2 of g 3 of the in error and appellees.
act of 1870 it is provided: “(2) A fugi
tive criminal shall not be surrendered to a * Mr. Justice Peckham after making the
foreign state unless provision is made by foregoing statement, delivered the opinion the law of that state, or by arrangement, of the court:
that the fugitive criminal shall not, until The objections which the plaintiff in er
he has been restored or had an opportunity ror urges to his further imprisonment are of returning to her Majesty's dominions, founded upon what he insists is implied be detained or tried in thať foreign state from the provisions of the treaties between for any offense committed prior to his surthe United States and Great Britain (1842- render, other than the extradition crime 1889 [8 Stat. at L. 572, 26 Stat. at L. proved by the facts on which the surrender 1508]), and he contends that, under those
is grounded.” treaties, the state of California had no
Article 3 of the treaty or convention of right or jurisdiction to try him for any of: 1889, July 12, between Great Britain and fense whatever other than the one for which the United States, is to be found in 26 Stat. he was extradited and delivered to the Gov. at L. 1508, 1509, and is also, among others, ernment of the United States for trial, even
set out in Johnson v. Browne, 205 U. S. though he committed an offense subsequent 309, 319, 51 L. ed. 816, 819, 27 Sup. Ct. ly to the extradition; and he further asserts that after a trial has been had for the of. Rep. 539, 542, 10 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 636,
638, as follows: "Article 3. fense for which he was extradited, he is surrendered by or to either of the high conentitled to be afforded reasonable time and tracting parties shall be triable or be tried opportunity after his final release on that for any crime or offense committed prior charge to return to the country of asylum, to his extradition, other than the offense for and that the trial of the crime for which he which he was surrendered, until he shall was extradited must be had within a rea
have had an opportunity of returning to sonable time after his extradition, or he the country from which he was is, for that reason, entitled to his discharge. dered." The treatment of the criminal for In other words, the plaintiff in error claims all acts committed or said to have been immunity, under the treaties, from arrest committed by him prior to extradition is or detention for any crime * committed by thus fully provided for. him after he had been brought back upon *The contention of the plaintiff in error the extradition warrant until he has been that the duty to afford opportunity to reallowed a reasonable time to return to the turn after a trial or other termination of place from which he was taken. He con
the case upon which he was extradited is tends that the duty originally resting upon unaffected by any subsequent crime he may the demanding country to try him only for have committed is not even plausible. the offense for which he was extradited, Nothing in the Rauscher Case (supra) is and to then afford him reasonable opportu: authority for any such contention. The nity to return, is unaffected by the fact that duty to afford opportunity to return after he committed another crime after his extra-trial, as stated, is limited to matters which dition.
happened before extradition; and, in the The treaty of 1842, August 9 (8 Stat. at nature of things, such duty cannot be exL. 576, § 10), is the one in regard to which tended by implication so as to cover a todiscussions as to its meaning have arisen.' tally different state of facts. Because, in any foreign government to an agent of the for the crimes or offenses specified in the United States, for the purpose of being warrant of extradition, and until his final brought within the United States and tried discharge from custody or imprisonment for for any crime of which he is duly accused, or on account of such crimes or offenses, and the President shall have power to take all for a reasonable time thereafter, and may necessary measures for the transportation employ such portion of the land or naval and safe-keeping of such accused person, forces of the United States, or of the miliand for his security against lawless vio- tia thereof, as may be necessary for the lenee, until the final conclusion of his trial | safe-keeping and protection of the accused.”
some cases, in construing the treaty, it has on the Law of Extradition, says, at page 84, been stated that a person extradited can be that the party extradited is not "protected tried only for the offense for which he was against trial for any offenses which he may surrendered for trial until he has had an commit against the receiving government opportunity of returning, it is assumed by subsequently to his extradition, and while the plaintiff in error that such language in its custody, or after his discharge thereprohibits the trial of a person so extradited from.” Such a criminal has no asylum, be for any crime committed by him subse cause he never had an asylum within the quently as well as prior to the surrender, jurisdiction of the government delivering without an opportunity for his return to him, with regard to the crime which ho the other country. The whole question is committed since such delivery. Ibid. simply one as to the meaning of the treaty, The contention also without merit that and we cannot doubt for a single moment he has, at any rate, the right to a trial to what that meaning is.
a conclusion of the case for which he was Much is said by the plaintiff in error as extradited, before he can be tried for a to his right to an asylum, as if it inhered in crime subsequently committed. The matter himself. The right is, however, simply pro- lies within the jurisdiction of the state vided for by treaty, and must be found whose laws he has violated since his extratherein, 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 governThe question then is, does either the ment. treaty or convention, by express provision There is nothing in the section of the U. or by inference, provide for a return of the S. Rev. Stat., supra, which gives the least criminal to the surrendering country after countenance to the claims of the plaintiff his surrender, and after a subsequent com- in error. mission of a crime in the country to which * The other objections made by him in rehe was surrendered? To ask the question is gard to the person who now has him in custo answer it. The plaintiff in error con tody under the various warrants and proctends for the treaty right to leave the coun. esses, copies of which are returned in the try, notwithstanding his commission of the record, we regard as unimportant. subsequent crime. This we cannot assent As soon as the judgments herein are af. to. It is impossible to conceive of represent. firmed the plaintiff in error will, of course, atives of two civilized countries solemnly pursuant to the judgment entered upon the entering into a treaty of extradition, and verdict of conviction against him, be taken therein providing that a criminal surren- to the state prison in California, provided dered according to demand, for a crime that for in the sentence, and there confined ac he has committed, if, subsequently to his cording to law. The orders and judgments surrender, he is guilty of murder or treason in the two cases are affirmed. or other crime, is, nevertheless, to have the right guaranteed to im to return unmo
(214 U. S. 82) lested to the country which surrendered him.
JULIAN E. WOODWELL, Appt., We can imagine no country, by treaty, as desirous of exacting such a condition of sur.
UNITED STATES. render, or any country as willing to accept it. When a treaty or statute contains a
UNITED STATES (8 39*)-OFFICERS-Com.
PENSATION-EXTRA SERVICES. provision that the party surrendered shall
Compensation for the services of an inbe tried for no other offense until he has spector of electric light plants in the Treas. had an opportunity to leave the country, ury Department, rendered in connection with the meaning of such a provision is perfectly the installation of an electric light plant for plain, and must receive a reasonable and the buildings of the Interior Department, at sensible construction. The party proceeded the request of the Secretary of the Interior, against must not be tried for any other of- and by the direction of the Secretary of the fense existing at the time when he was ex
Treasury, is forbidden by U. S. Rev. Stat.
§ 1765, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1207, altradited (whether, at the time of such ex. though such services were valuable, and were tradition, it had or had not been discovo performed after hours, and in addition to a ered), until he shall have had a reasonable full discharge of regular duties, since the time to return to the country from which he case is one of the performance of extra was taken, after his trial or other termin services which the law did not specially ation of the proceeding. That such privi. require, and for which it did not fix the lege should be acorded to one who commits remuneration, and not a case of the filling a crime after his surrender to a demanding ments.
of two distinct places, offices, or employ. government lacks all semblance of reason (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see United States
Dec. Dig. $39. ] Spear, in the second edition of his work
•For other cases see same topic & $ NUMBER In Dec. & Am. Diga, 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
Argued April 8, 12, 1909. Decided May, such matters, may be authorized to prepare 17, 1909.
detailed plans and specifications, upon which
APPEAL from the Court of Claims to appropriation the work contemplated in the
review a judgment dismissing a peti
date.” tion to recover for extra services rendered by an inspector of electric light plants in Treasury, acknowledging the receipt of this
On March 14, 1901, the Secretary of the the Treasury Department. Affirmed.
letter, said: See same case below, 41 Ct. Cl. 357. The facts are stated in the opinion.
"In reply you are informed that the work Mr. William H. Robeson for appel. specifications can be performed under the
incident to the preparation of the plans and lant. Assistant Attorney General John Q. Nice, who is familiar with the require
supervision of a qualified employee of this Thompson and Mr. Clark McKercher for
ments; but, as the work will involve the emappellee.
ployment of draftsmen and other persons Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion who cannot be supplied from the regular one of the court:
force of this Department*without detriment* This appeal is from a judgment of the to its business, it is assumed that such court of claims, dismissing a petition filed service can be paid for from the appropriaby the appellant to recover from the United tion provided for the installation of the States the sum of $3,675. 41 Ct. Cl. 357. plant. Such expense will not exceed $500, From the findings of the court below the including the expense incident to a general facts upon which the claim was based are inspection of the work during the period substantially as follows: Woodwell, the of the installation. appellant, is by profession a mechanical and
“It is the judgment of this Department electrical engineer. From a date prior to that the installation can be completed in all March 3, 1901, up to the time of the bring. its details, in the most satisfactory manner, ing of this suit, he was an inspector of elec- without exceeding the limits of the tric light plants under the jurisdiction of appropriation provided therefor,-namely, the Treasury Department, receiving a salary $74,000.” of $2,000 per annum. In the sundry civil
In answering this letter the Secretary of act, approved March 3, 1901, the following the Interior said: appropriation was made (31 Stat. at L. "Referring to your letter of March 14, 1156, chap. 853):
1901, in which you state that, in compliance “For the establishment of an electric light. with the request of this Department, a coming plant for buildings occupied by offices of petent person connected with the Treasury the Department of the Interior, the Patent Department will be authorized to prepare Office building, the old Postoffice building, necessary plans and specifications covering now occupied by the General Land and In- the installation of the electric lighting plant dian Bureaus, and the Pension Office build for the buildings of this Department, and to ing, and for improvement in the heating of your suggestion that the work will involve the Patent Office buildings, including neces- the employment of draftsmen and other persary conduits, the laying and construction sons who cannot be supplied from the reguof which are hereby authorized, $74,000.” lar force of the Treasury Department, and
On March 11, 1901, the Secretary of the which would involve an expense not to exInterior sent to the Secretary of the Treas. ceed $500, which would include the expense ury a communication in which, after recit- incident to the general inspection of the ing the terms of the appropriation act above work during the period of installation, I referred to, he said:
have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of "When this item was under consideration, the decision of the Comptroller of the the committee on appropriation of the House Treasury, to whom the matter was submitof Representatives secured, through the ted by this Department, in which the conAssistant Superintended of the Treasury, clusion is reached that prior to July 1, 1901, the itemized estimate of cost of the the preliminary expenses necessary to carry proposed work, upon which the amount into effect the appropriation for the electric of apropriation is based, and, all the lighting plant may be incurred, although hearing before the committee, it was al payment therefor cannot be made previous 80 indicated by members thereof that it to that date. would be expected that the projected work "The Department would be glad to have should conform to the estimate and the gen the preliminary work commenced at the eral plan outlined therein.
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 i etc., referred to in your letter. If such
29 S. C.-37.
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 Depart.
Department of the Interior, ment."
Washington, January 2, 1902. *And on May 10, 1901, the Secretary of the Permission having been obtained from the Treasury notified the Secretary of the In- Secretary of the Treasury for you to perterior as follows:
form such service, you are hereby authorized “Referring to your letter of May 8, 1901, and directed to proceed to Ridgeway, Pennyou are informed that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, sylvania, as the representative of this deinspector of electric light plants, has been partment at shop tests to be made, comdirected to confer with E. M. Dawson, chief mencing on Monday next, the 6th instant, of clerk, Department of the Interior, relative the engines and dynamos to be furnished by to the installation of an electric light, heat, the Ridgeway Dynamo & Engine Company, and power plant in the old Postoffice De- under contract with this Department.
There is herewith inclosed, for your inforpartment building of this city.”
Subsequently, the Secretary of the In- mation and guidance, a copy of the specifiterior made the following order, an official cations of the contract, wherein it is procopy of which was sent to Mr. Woodwell
vided that “the regulation, guaranteed effithrough the Secretary of the Treasury:
ciency, heating effect, and insulation resistance shall be determined by actual test
in the presence of the department's author. Order.
ized inspector, who shall determine test conDepartment of the Interior, ditions. The tests to be made at the shops
Washington, June 21, 1901. where the dynamos are constructed, upon A board to consist of Mr. Edward M. due notification by contractors of their Dawson, chief clerk of the Department, Mr. readiness to commence said test, and at the J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light expense of the contractor, except travel. plants, Treasury Department, and Mr. Josing and other necessary expenses of Deeph S. Hill, engineer, etc., "General Post-partment's agent. Should the test be deoffice,' is hereby constituted to, from time layed or require repetition for any reason to time, open bids and recommend awards of for which the contractor is justly responsicontracts for the work embraced in the in-ble, the cost of the delayed or any subsestallation of the electric lighting plant for quent test, including the traveling and other the buildings of the Interior Department
necessary expenses of the Department's and in the improvement of the heating of agent, shall be at the expense of the con
tractor." the Patent Office building. The board will meet at the office of the ent Office), will be detailed to accompany
Mr. L. K. Sager, of this Department (Patchief clerk of the Dep tment at such time is may be designated by advertisements for you and assist in making the tests.
Your actual expenses while engaged upon opening proposals for the work.
this service will be paid by this Department
upon presentation of proper accounts and On November 23, 1901, the Acting Secre- vouchers from funds available. tary of the Treasury sent the following communication:
Because of the foregoing correspondence, "Referring to your letter of November 21, Mr. Woodwell, as a mechanical and electri1901, requesting that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, cal engineer, performed certain services in inspector of electric light plants, Treasury and about the installation of said electric Department, be instructed to conduct a test lighting and heating plant, between the 10th of the engines and dynamos being manufac day of May, 1901, and the 1st day of Februtured by the Ridgeway Dynamo & Engine ary, 1902, and devoted 897 hours to said Company, Ridgeway, Pennsylvania, for the
service, and also necessarily expended $110
in connection therewith. Interior Department, I have the honor to state that, owing to prior and important in Woodwell outside of his regular office hours
The services rendered were performed by structions, it will be impractical for * Mr. Woodwell to make the test the 25th instant, and during the time when the services were
as an employee in the Treasury Department, as desired by you.
rendered he also fully discharged his duties “You are advised, however, that, if the as such employee of the Treasury Depart. matter can be held in abeyance until Decem-ment. ber 2, 1901, Mr. Woodwell will be instructed While the court of claims declared that to make the test."
the facts above recited presented a strong Thereafter the following from the Acting equitable case in favor of the claimant, en
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, addi. tained in $8 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 margini- 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 thereforex tions of which are separate and distinct, plicitly stating that it was for such addio 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 infer. ances 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 88 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. Tout or the appropriation in question or other.
Sec. 1763. No person who holds an office, may be required to perform, unless expressthe salary or annual compensation attached ly authorized by law. to which amounts to the sum of two thous. Sec. 1765. No officer in any branch of the and, five hundred dollars, shall receive com- public service, or any other person whose pensation for discharging the duties of any salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law other office, unless expressly authorized by or regulations, shall receive any additional law.
pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in Sec. 1764. No allowance or compensation any form whatever, for the disbursement of shall be made to any officer or clerk, by rea- public money, or for any other service or Bon of the discharge of duties which belong duty whatever, unless the same is authorto any other officer or clerk in the same or ized by law, and the appropriation therefor any other department; and no allowance or explicitly states that it is for such addi compensation shall be made for any extra tional pay, extra allowance, or compensa: services whatever which any officer or clerk ' tion.