1889. The second, third, sixth and seventh articles of that convention are set forth in the margin.1

It will be perceived that the second article provides that no person surrendered shall be triable or tried, or be punished, for any political crime or offense, while article three provides that no person surrendered shall be triable or be tried (leaving out the words "or be punished") for any crime or offense committed prior to the extradition, other than the offense for

1 Article II.

A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered, if the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded be one of a political character, or if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character.

No person surrendered by either of the high contracting parties to the other shall be triable or tried, or be punished for any political crime or offense, or for any act connected therewith, committed previously to his extradition.

If any question shall arise as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this article, the decision of the authorities of the government in whose jurisdiction the fugitive shall be at the time shall be final.

Article III.

No person surrendered by or to either of the high contracting 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 have had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was surrendered.

Article VI.

The extradition of fugitives under the provisions of this convention and of the said tenth article shall be carried out in the United States and in Her Majesty's dominions, respectively, in conformity with the laws regulating extradition for the time being in force in the surrendering State.

Article VII.

The provisions of the said tenth article and of this convention shall apply to persons convicted of crimes therein respectively named and specified, whose sentence therefor shall not have been executed.

In a case of a fugitive criminal alleged to have been convicted of the crime for which his surrender is asked, a copy of the record of the conviction and of the sentence of the court before which such conviction took place, duly authenticated, shall be produced, together with the evidence proving that the prisoner is the person to whom such sentence refers.

which he was surrendered, until he shall have had an opportunity for returning to the country from which he was surrendered. Hence, it is urged that, as punishment for another offense of which the person had been convicted is not in so many words expressly prohibited in and by article three, a requisition may be obtained for one crime under that article, and when possession of the person is thus obtained, he may be punished for another and totally different crime of which he had been convicted before extradition.

We do not concur in this view. Although if the words "or be punished" were contained in the third article, the question in this case could not, of course, arise, yet we are satisfied that the whole treaty, taken in connection with that of 1842, fairly construed does not permit of the imprisonment of an extradited person under the facts in this case.

The mere failure to use these words in the third article does not so far change and alter "the manifest scope and object" of the two treaties as to render this imprisonment legal. The general scope of the two treaties makes manifest an intention to prevent a State from obtaining jurisdiction of an individual whose extradition is sought on one ground and for one expressed purpose, and then having obtained possession of his person to use it for another and different purpose. Why the words were left out in the third article of the convention of 1889, when their insertion would have placed the subject entirely at rest, may perhaps be a matter of some possible surprise, yet their absence cannot so far alter the otherwise plain meaning of the two treaties as to give them a totally different construction.

In addition to the provisions of the treaty of 1889, we find still in existence the already mentioned sections of the Revised Statutes, which prohibit a person's arrest or trial for any other offense than that with which he was charged in the extradition proceedings, until he shall have had a reasonable time to return unmolested from the country to which he was brought. It is argued, however, that the sections in question have

been repealed by implication by the treaty or convention of 1889, and that the respondent, therefore, cannot obtain any benefit from them. We see no fair or reasonable ground upon which to base the claim of repeal. Repeals by implication are never favored, and a later treaty will not be regarded as repealing an earlier statute by implication, unless the two are absolutely incompatible and the statute cannot be enforced without antagonizing the treaty. United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 213. If both can exist the repeal by implication will not be adjudged. These sections are not incompatible with the treaty or in any way inconsistent therewith. We find nothing in the treaty which provides that a person shall be surrendered for one offense and then that he may be punished for another, such as is the case here. The most that can be asserted is that an inference to that effect perhaps might be drawn from the absence in article III, of positive language preventing such punishment. But that slight and doubtful inference, resting on such an insufficient foundation, is inadequate to overcome the positive provisions of the statute and the otherwise general scope of both treaties, which are inconsistent with the existence of such right.

It is urged that the construction contended for by the respondent is exceedingly technical and tends to the escape of criminals on refined subtleties of statutory construction, and should not, therefore, be adopted. While the escape of criminals is, of course, to be very greatly deprecated, it is still most important that a treaty of this nature between sovereignties should be construed in accordance with the highest good faith, and that it should not be sought by doubtful construction of some of its provisions to obtain the extradition of a person for one offense and then punish him for another and different offense. Especially should this be the case where the Government surrendering the person has refused to make the surrender for the other offense on the ground that such offense was not one covered by the treaty.

Our attention has been directed to various other treaties VOL. CCV-21

between this Government and other nations, where provision is expressly made in regard to punishment. They frequently provide that no person shall be triable or tried "or be punished" for any other offense than that for which he was delivered up, until he has had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was surrendered. But because in some of the treaties the words "or be punished" are contained we are not required to hold that in the case before us the absence of those words permits such punishment, when that construction is, as we have said, contrary to the manifest meaning of the whole treaty, and also violates the statutes above cited. The order of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY did not sit in the case and took no part in its decision.

HUNT v. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

No. 314. Submitted March 4, 1907.-Decided April 8, 1907.

Quotations of prices on an exchange, collected by the exchange, are property and entitled to the protection of the law, and the exchange has the right to keep them to itself or have them distributed under conditions established by it. Board of Trade v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U. S. 236.

In a suit brought by an exchange to enjoin defendant from receiving quotations from the telegraph company to which it has given the right to distribute them, and from using the same, the value involved is not merely the amount which defendant pays the telegraph company, but the right of the exchange to keep the control of the quotations and protect itself from competition which is the object of the suit; and if the testimony shows, as it does in this case, that such right is worth more than $2,000, the Circuit Court has jurisdiction, so far as amount is concerned; and when the plea presents such an issue the burden is on appellant to show that the amount involved is less than the jurisdictional amount.

The fact that defendant has, in another action in the state court, and to which the exchange was not a party, obtained an injunction against the telegraph company, enjoining it from ceasing to deliver the quotations, does not deprive the Circuit Court of jurisdiction of the suit by the exchange under § 720, Rev. Stat., the parties and the purpose not being the same.

144 Fed. Rep. 511, affirmed.

THIS is a bill in equity brought by the New York Cotton Exchange, a New York corporation, against appellant, a citizen of Tennessee, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee, to enjoin him from receiving and using the quotations of sales made upon the Exchange. The case is here on questions of jurisdiction, and only a synopsis of the principal facts alleged is necessary.

The Exchange is a private corporation under the laws of New York, with 450 members, and owns in the city of New York a building for the use of its members, and conducts therein on every business day cotton sales for present and future delivery, the transfers aggregating many million bales of cotton annually. The purchases and sales for future delivery are permitted to be made and are made only during market hours and by open viva voce bidding, and the knowledge of the prices thus made has become a species of property of such value that Telegraph Companies pay large sums of money to the Exchange for the privilege of receiving instantaneously the quotations and distributing the same to customers and many persons in the United States who are engaged in the cotton commission business. Such persons are willing to pay and do pay the Telegraph Companies therefor, and the Exchange realizes from the distribution of the quotations through the Telegraph Companies large sums of money annually. The quotations are such peculiar kind of property that their value depends upon the power of the Exchange to confine the transmission and distribution thereof to such Telegraph Companies and their distributing agencies as will contract therefor with the Exchange, and, that, if any person or corporation is permitted to promptly acquire the quotations surreptitiously or