ExploreUK is getting a new design. Try the beta site!


ExploreUK home

0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

31 > Page 31 of Argument of J. Proctor Knott in re Varney Hatfield et al., on habeas corpus before the United States district court of Kentucky, February 28, 1888

31 treaty was fully considered, and it was then held that when a party was duly surrendered by proper proceedings under the treaty with Great Britain, he came to this country clothed with the protection which the nature of such proceedings and the true construction of treaty gave him. One of the rights with which he was then clothEd, both in regard to himself and good faith to the country which sent him here, was that he should be tried for no other offenee than the one for which he was delivered under the extradition proceedings. If Ker had been br ught to this country by proceedings under the treaty of 1870-74 with Peru, it seems probable from the statement of tne case in the record that he might have successfully pleaded that he was ex- tradited for larceny and convicted by the verdict of the jury ot embez- zlement. But it is quite a different case when the plaintiff in errr comes to this country in the manner in which he was brought here, clothed with no rights which a proceeding under the treaty could have given him, andl no duty which this country owes to Perti or to him under the treaty." I have now done. and in discharging my duty to my State and to this Court, I have not intentionally stated a single principle or urged a solitary proposition which I would not solemnly affirm if I occupied the position your Honor has for years so signally adorned. But I can not resume my ,,eat in justice to myself without thanking the Court for the courtesy and patience with which it has heard the argument I have felt it incumbent upon me to submit.