« PreviousContinue »
In re Henrich, (1867) 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 414, to warrant his conclusions.'” In re Count 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,369.
De Toulouse Lautrec, (C. C. A. 1900) 102 Taken from state custody. - A judgment Fed. Rep. 879. See also Matter of Wahl, debtor was committed to state jail on execu (1878) 15 Blatchf. (U. S.) 334; Matter of tions and writs of attachment in civil actions Wiegand, (1877) 14 Blatchf. (U. S.) 370; against the body of the prisoner as an ab Ex p. Van Aernam, (1854) 3 Blatchf. (U. S.) sconding debtor. He may be taken from such 160; Eæ p. Van Hoven, (1876) 4 Dill. (U, S.; custody by a writ of habeas corpus issuing 415; Terlinden v. Ames, (1902) 184 l'. S. from a federal court upon the petition of a 270; Bryant v. U. S., (1897) 167 U'. S. 104; United States deputy marshal who holds a Ornelas 1. Ruiz, (1896) 161 V. S. 502; Fong commissioner's warrant for the arrest of the Yue Ting v. U. S., (1893) 149 U. S. 698; prisoner on extradition proceedings for for In re Cortes, (1890) 136 U. S. 330; Benson gery in Canada, but to be returned to the 1. McMahon, (1888) 127 U. S. 457; Sternajailer if those proceedings fail. In man 1. Peck, (C. C. A. 1897) 80 Fed. Rep. Mineau, (1891) 45 Fed. Rep. 188.
883; In re Fowler, (1880) 4 Fed. Rp. 303; The jurisdiction of the commissioner to hear In re Veremaitre, (1850) 3 Am. L. J. N. S. and consider evidence and make the certifi 438, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,915; In re Macdoncate is not dependent upon the fact that he nell, (1873) 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 170, 16 Fed. issued the warrant of arrest. In re Grin, Cas. No. 8,772; In re Kaine, (1852) 10 N. Y. (1901) 112 Fed. Rep. 790 (affirmed in Grin Leg. Obs. 257, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,598. But r. Shine, (1902) 187 l'. S. 181).
see In re Henrich, (1867) 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) " Where the warrant of arrest is return 414. able before a commissioner for hearing, it In In re Stupp, (1875) 12 Blatchf. (U. S.) should be one who has been previously desig 501, it was said that the court issuing the nated by the Circuit Court under which he writ of habeas corpus “ must inquire and holds his office, as a commissioner for that adjudge whether the commissioner acquired purpose.” In re Henrich, (1 67) 5 Blatchf. jurisdiction of the matter, by conforming to (C. S.) 414, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,369, citing the requirements of the treaty and the statIn re Kaine, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 142. ute; whether he exceeded his jurisdiction;
Preliminary examination - Probable cause. and whether he had any legal or competent – Extradition proceedings are like a pre
evidence of facts before him, on which to liminary examination; and, if it appears exercise a judgment as to the criminality of tliat a crime has been committed, and that the accused. But such court is not to inthere is probable cause to believe that the quire whether the legal evidence of facts defendant is guilty of that crime, substantial before the commissioner was suflicient or injustice requires that he should be put upon sufficient to warrant his conclusion; nor, if trial. In re Herres, (1887) 33 Fed. Rep. there was legal and competent evidence of 165; Benson 1. McMahon, (1888) 127 U. S. facts before the commissioner, for him to con457.
sider in making up his decision as to the A warrant of extradition can only be criminality of the accused, is the court, on granted when there is evidence enough of the habeas corpus, to hold the proceedings illegal, criminality of the accused, according to the and to discharge the prisoner, because some laws of the state, to justify his apprehension other evidence was introduced which was not and commitment for trial for the offense legal or competent, but was held to be so by charged, if the same had been committed in the commissioner, and was considered by the state. Matter of Calder, (1853) 2 Edm. him on the question of fact, or because the Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 374; Matter of Washburn, court, on a consideration of all the evidence (1819) 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 106.
which the commissioner considered, would * The proof, in all cases under a treaty have come to a different conclusion, or beof extradition, should be not only competent, cause the court, on an exclusion of such of but full and satisfactory, that the offense the evidence as it may think was not legal or has been committed by the fugitive in the competent, would come, on the rest of the foreign jurisdiction - sufficiently so to war evidence, to a different conclusion of facts rant a conviction, in the judgment of the from that at which the commissioner armagistrate, of the offense with which he is rived." charged, if sitting upon the final trial and When on the face of the complaint extrahearing of the case. No magistrate should ditable offenses are charged to have been order a surrender short of such proof.” Ex committed, if petitioner desires to assert that p. Kaine, (1853) 3 Blatchf. (U. Ŝ.) 1. it appears from the depositions taken before
Vixed law and fact. -- " Whether an extra and the warrant of arrest issued by the forditable crime has been committed is a ques eign court, and the provisions of the criminal tion of mixed law and fact, but chiefly of code, that such is not the fact, they should be fact.” Ornelas r. Ruiz, (1896) 161 U. S. 502. set out. Petitioner cannot select a portion
Review of commissioner's decision.—“ Hav: of the documents accompanying the coming jurisdiction,
both of the ac plaint and ask the court to sustain his cused and of the subject-matter, the finding conclusion of law thereon, nor can he subseby the commissioner of probable cause to be quently supply the inadequacy by a certilieve the accused guilty of such offense is orari, which could do no more than bring up open only, on habeas corpus, to the inquiry what he should have furnished in the first whether there was legal evidence of facts instance. Terlinden v. Ames, (1902) 184 before the commissioner on which to exercise U. S. 270. his judgment, 'and not whether the legal Commissioner's decision upon the weight of evidence of facts was sufficient or insufficient proof will not be interfered with, unless
there be clear insufficiency in the evidence to afford a prima facie case against the accused. Matter of Vandervelpen, (1877) 14 Blatchf. (C. S.) 137; In re Krojanker, (1890) 44 Fed. Rep. 482; In re Behrendt, (1884) 22 Fed. Rep. 699,
When the evidence is not satisfactory and far from convincing, but the facts and circumstances proved authorize conflicting presumptions and probabilities as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, it is the province of the commissioner to determine their import and whether they are such as to justify him in exercising his power to commit the accused to custody pending the action of the department of state. Sternaman v. Peck, (C. C. A. 1897) 80 Fed. Rep. 883.
Reviewing interlocutory decisions. It is in no case proper to resort to the writ of habeas corpus, or to a succession of such writs, from day to day, for the purpose of reviewing the interlocutory decisions of the commissioner on questions of evidence. In re Macdonnell, (1873) 11 Blatchf. (L'. S.) 79.
No right of appeal. — In extradition cases from a foreign country, the judge or magistrate acts under special authority conferred by treaties and acts of Congress, and, no appeal from his decision being given by the law under which he acts, no right of appeal exists. Extradition of Muller, (1863) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 501, citing Matter of Metzger, (1847). 5 How. (U. S.) 176; U. S. r. Ferreira, (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 40; In re Kaine, (1852) 14 How. (U. S.) 103.
Further certificate and amendment of complaint. —- After a writ of certiorari has been issued and served upon the commissioner calling upon him to produce the record of the proceeding, he has no authority to add a further certificate to his return, or to amend the complaint. Eæ p. Lane, (1881) 6 Fed. Rep. 34.
President cannot control. — The magistrate, before whom the accused party is brought, examines the case judicially, and the President has no control or direction over his decision. International Extradition, (1853) 6 Op. Atty.-Gen. 91; Matter of Calder, (1853) 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 374.
But in In re Henrich, (1867) 5 Blatchf. (U. S.) 414, the court said that the President has the power to revise the opinion of the commissioner. If he should be of opinion that the evidence taken before the commissioner on the hearing was not sufficient to sustain the charge, then it should be his duty to withhold a warrant of extradition.
The testimony of a party charged with extraditable crime before a United States judge cannot be admitted, although such judge is sitting in a state where such evidence is receivable. In re Dugau, (1874) 2 Lowell (U. S.) 367, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 4,120.
Adjournments. The commissioner may exercise a just and reasonable discretion in the matter of adjournments of the proceedings. In re Macdonnell, (1873) 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 79, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,771; Ricev, Ames, (1901) 180 U. S. 371, holding that the commissioner's power to adjourn was not controlled by a state statute limiting continuance to ten days; In re Wadge, (1883)
15 Fed. Rep. 866; In re Ludwig, (1887) 32 Fed. Rep. iit, holding that a discharge will not be granted unless the cominissioner has abused his discretion by granting too long an adjournment; International Extradition, (1853) 6 Op. Atty.-Gen. 91.
When the court is of opinion that the evidence produced is not suflicient to surrender the accused, a hearing on a warrant of extradition cannot be postponed indefinitely, and the discharge of the accused suspended until further evidence of his guilt may be brought from abroad. Matter of Calder, (1853) 2 Edm, Sel. Cas. (N. Y.) 374.
Second warrant of arrest. -- Where a district judge has ordered the discharge of a fugitive from justice, the party may, upon the warrant of another judge, be rearrested and re-examined in the same manner, where there is a proper case made out. Extradition of Muller, (1863) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 501.
The prisoner being in legal custody under a warrant of arrest, and, while the proceedings were being carried on, another warrant on another charge having been issued, and he having been released under the first warrant through insufficiency of evidence, it was held that arrest under the second warrant was not illegal or invalid. In re Macdonnell, (1873) 11 Blatchf. (U. S.) 170.
Where there was a question upon the form of the first warrant whether the petitioner could be held upon it, and a second warrant was issued by the district judge upon a second complaint, and no order was made upon the first complaint and warrant, it was held that the court had the power to issue a second warrant and that the defendant's arrest thereunder was not void on habeas corpus. Fergus, Petitioner, (1887) 30 Fed. Rep. 607.
An extradition requires the assent of both the judicial and the executive, and the executive is the final tribunal to determine it; and whenever it appears that the executive has said that the alleged offense does not come within the scope of the extradition treaty, or where the executive says he is satisfied that the prosecution is instituted for political reasons, or to gratify private malice, and therefore the offender shall not be extradited, that concludes all further inquiry by the court. But when it is determined by the executive merely that the testimony is insufficient, this leaves it, as in other cases of preliminary examination, open for a second inquiry. If the commissioner should commit upon the second examination, and it should appear that he had no clearer or more convincing testimony as to the truth of the charge than was presented before, the court has power to review the testimony, and say that the executive having once passed upon it, the commissioner is bound to follow. In re Kelly, (1886) 26 Fed. Rep. 852.
Upon the discharge of one whose surrender has been asked for, if the decision was upon the legal merits of the case, pronounced after full investigation and consideration of them, a renewal of a foreign government's application ought not, perhaps, to be entertained, but until a decision founded upon adequate investigation and full consideration, the pro
ceedings under successive applications for ex Super. Ct. Crim. T. 1858) 4 Park. Crim. tradition are, in effect, if not in character, (N. Y.) 253. analogous to successive preliminary hearings
question as to how the accused came before local committing magistrates under into the United States, whether voluntarily or ordinary charges of crime. Muller's Case, involuntarily, will not be considered. In re (1863) 5 Phila. (Pa.) 289, 20 Leg. Int. (Pa.) Newman, (1897) 79 Fed. Rep. 622; In re 301.
Ezeta, (1894) 62 Fed. Rep. 964. From whom demand must come. — De Accused voluntarily surrenders. - If, while mands of extradition must come from the under arrest in a foreign country under extrasupreme executive authority of the nation de dition proceedings, a defendant enters into an manding it. International Extradition (1854) agreement to return to the state in which the i Op. Atty.-Gen. 6.
offense is charged to have been committed, Notification of escape by foreign local and thereupon the extradition proceedings are officer. – A mere notification by the local abandoned, his appearance and trial are not officer of a foreign government that an alleged upon extradition, and therefore no question eriminal has escaped is not sufficient prima can arise under the constitution, treaties, or facie evidence of the guilt of the accused to laws of the United States of which the federal warrant the interposition of the President. courts can take jurisdiction. In re Cross, International Extradition, (1854) 7 Op. (1890) 43 Fed. Rep. 517. Atty.-Gen. 6.
Used to aid civil suits. If the criminal Technical objections to the form of docu proceedings are a pretext to bring an accused ments in extradition are not given the weight person within the jurisdiction, so that he may once accorded to them; " and if the certifi be held to bail in a civil suit, and the creditors cates, signatures, etc., are in substantial in whose suits the orders of arrest are issued conformity to the requirements of the stat instigate the criminal proceeding, and are inute, and give reasonable assurance of authen strumental in bringing the accused where the ticity, it is sufficient." In re Neely, (1900) orders of arrest can be served, then the arrest 103 Fed. Rep. 626.
is unlawful and cannot be maintained. But Bail not granted. — Bail cannot be granted this rule does not apply to persons not conwhere there is a continuance of the proceed cerned in the trick or device by which the ings in order that further evidence of probable party was brought within the jurisdiction of guilt of the accused may be obtained, in the the court. Adriance v. Lagrave, (1874) 59 matter of extradition from a foreign country, N. Y. 110; Martin v. Woodhall, (1889) 56 as no provision is made therefor. In re Car N. Y. Super. Ct. 439. rier, (1893) 57 Fed. Rep. 578.
Trial for different offense. — It had long Not only is there no statute providing for been a vexed question whether a person admission to bail in cases of foreign extradi brought within the jurisdiction of the court, tion, but this section and section 5273 are under an extradition treaty and the statute, inconsistent with its allowance after commit might be tried for an offense other than and tal. Sections 1014 and 1015, R. S., are con different from that for which he had been exfined to crimes or offenses against the United tradited, until reasonable time and opporStates. Wright v. Henkel, (1903) 190 U. S. tunity had been given him after his release 40.
or trial upon the charge for which he was Method of surrender no defense to crime. extradited, in order that he might return to - Where a fugitive has been surrendered, he the country from which he had been extracannot, as a matter of defense to a crime, at dited. All doubt, however, on this point has tack the method of his surrender, and thereby been set at rest by a decision of the United seek to defeat justice Hall v. Patterson, States Supreme Court in U. S. v. Rauscher, (1891) 45 Fed. Rep. 352. See also Kelly v. (1886) 119 U. S. 407, which held that he State, (1882) 13 Tex, App. 158.
could not be tried for the second offense withThe jurisdiction of the court is not im out giving him such reasonable time, thus paired by the manner in which the accused is
overruling the earlier decisions of U. S. v. brought before it, so that he is not entitled to Caldwell, (1871) 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 131; be released because his surrender was pro U. S. v. Lawrence, (1876) 13 Blatchf. (U. S.) cured by the governor of a state requesting a In re Miller, (1885) 23 Fed. Rep. 32. foreign country, with which the United States
See also the following cases holding as in had no treaty, to surrender him to a police U. S. v. Rauscher: Cosgrove v. Winney, 174 officer of a city in the state. People v. Pratt, U. S. 64; U. S. v. Watis, (1882) 8 Sawy. (U. (1889) 78 Cal. 345.
S.) 370, 14 Fed. Rep. 130; Er p. Fibbs, (1886) Illegality in the mode of arrest in the coun 26 Fed. Rep. 421; Er p. Coy, (1887) 32 Fed. try to which a fugitive has fled is not ground Rep. 911; Com. 1'. Hawes, (1878) 13 Bush for his discharge, on motion of the accused. (Ky.) 697, 26 Am. Rep. 242; People v. Gray, If the foreign nation complains, it is a matter (1884) 66 Cal. 271; People v. Ilannan, (Supm. which concerns the political relations of the Ct. Spec. T. 1894) 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 600; People two countries, and in that aspect is a subject. v. Stout, (1894) 81 llwn (N. Y.) 336; State not within the power of the state court. State v. Vanderpool, (1883) 39 Ohio St. 273, 48 r. Brewster, (1835) 7 Vt. 118. See Ker v.
Am. Rep. 431; Blandford v. State, (1881) Illinois, (1886) 119 U. S. 436.
10 Tex. App. 627; Treaty-Extradition, (1901) It is no ground for discharging a prisoner 23 Op. Atty.-Gen. 431. from arrest in a criminal matter that he has It follows from this that a person extrabeen forribly brought within the jurisdiction. dited upon a particular charge cannot be Matter of Lagrave, (Supm. Ct. 1873) 45 How. convicted of a lesser offense, although the Pr. (N. Y.) 301; People v. Rowe, (Buffalo latter may be included in the offense for
which he was so extradited. People v. Stout, (1894) 81 Hun (N. Y.) 336; People v. Hannan, Supm. Ct. Spec. T. 1894) 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 600.
This exemption from arrest and trial for a second offense, without time and opportunity given to return, extends also to arrest in civil
In re Reinitz, (1889) 39 Fed. Rep. 204.
" The principle exempting a fugitive criminal brought under an extradition treaty into the jurisdiction of the state in which the offense was committed, from prosecution for offenses other than that for which he was extradited, does not apply to the case of a person brought forcibly into the jurisdiction without invoking the aid of any treaty.” 12 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 597, citing Ker v. People, (1884) 110 Ill. 627, 51 Am. Rep. 706, affirmed in Ker v. Illinois, (1886) 119 U. S. 436.
An order setting aside an indictment under which a fugitive has been extradited does not operate as an acquittal of the defendant for the offense therein charged, and is not a bar to his further prosecution for the same offense by indictment or information. Foss, (1894) 102 Cal. 347.
Technical defect in indictment. On the trial of one who has been extradited from a foreign country, the objection cannot be sustained that he is being tried for an offense for which he was not extradited because of a mere technical defect in the information or indictment under which his extradition was obtained. In re Rowe, (C. C. A. 1896) 77 Fed. Rep. 161.
Proviso of June 6, 1900 — Constitutional.
This Act is not unconstitutional and void in that it does not secure to the accused, when surrendered to a foreign country for trial in
its tribunals, all of the rights, privileges, and immunities that are guaranteed by the Constitution to persons charged with the commission in this country of crime against the United States. Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109, affirming In re Neely, (1900) 103 Fed. Rep. 626.
Cuba W’ithin the meaning of this Act, Cuba is a foreign territory. - It cannot be regarded in any constitutional, legal, or international sense, a part of the territory of the United States. Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109, affirming In re Neely, (1900) 103 Fed. Rep. 626.
Embezzler of Cuban public funds. — It was held that a case of a public employee, who had charge of the collection and deposit of moneys of the department of posts of the city of Havana, and who was alleged to have taken and embezzled certain of the public funds of Cuba, came within the provisions of this Act; and that the court below having found that there was probable cause to believe the accused guilty of the offenses charged, the extradition order was proper, and no ground existed for his discharge on habeas corpus. Neely 1. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109, affirming In re Neely, (1900) 103 Fed. Rep. 626.
Where a crime was committed on a vessel registered at a ('uban port, Cuba being at that time under a military governor appointed by the United States, it was held that as Cuba was at the time a foreign country, and removed from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution, the defendant was amenable to the laws of Cuba, and the federal courts had no jurisdiction of the matter. U. S. v. Assia, (1902) 118 Fed. Rep. 915, following Neely v. Henkel, (1901) 180 U. S. 109.
Sec. 5271. [Evidence on the hearing.) In every case of complaint, and of a hearing upon the return of the warrant of arrest, copies of the depositions upon which an original warrant in any foreign country may have been granted, certified under the hand of the person issuing such warrant, and attested upon the oath of the party producing them to be true copies of the original depositions, may be received in evidence of the criminality of the person so apprehended, if they are authenticated in such manner as would entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party escaped. The certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that any paper or other document so offered is authenticated in the manner required by this section. [R. S.]
Act of Aug. 12, 1848, ch. 107, 9 Stat. L. evidence of the criminality of the person so 302; Act of june 22, 1860, ch. 184, 12 Stat. apprehended, by the tribunals of the foreign L. 84.
country from which the accused party shall Section 5271 is given above as originally have escaped, and copies of any such deposienacted in the Revised Statutes. By the Act tions, warrants or other papers, shall, if auof June 19, 1876, ch. 133, 19 Stat. L. 59, this thenticated according to the law of such forsection was amended so as to read as fol eign country, be in like manner received as lows: “In every case of complaint and of evidence; and the certificate of the principal a hearing upon the return of the warrant of diplomatic or consular officer of the United arrest, any depositions, warrants, or other States resident in such foreign country shall papers offered in evidence, shall be admitted be proof that any such deposition, warrant or and received for the purpose of such hearing other paper, or copy thereof, is authenticated if they shall be properly and legally authen in the manner required by this section.” ticated so as to entitle them to be received as This amendatory Act, however, was repealed
by section 6 of the Act of Aug. 3, 1882, ch. 378, given infra, p. 91, and the section as it stood originally therefore restored. See article on ** Statutes and Statutory Construction," vol. 1, p. cxxiv.
See for construction of this section as it stood amended by the Act of June 19, 1876, In re Fowler (1880) 4 Fed. Rep. 303.
Partial repeal of sec. 5271. — So much of the above section as is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of Aug. 3, 1882, ch. 378, is repealed by section 6 of that Act, which is given infra, p. 91.
Certificate must show principal diplomatic or consular officer.-" The certificate should
show upon its face that the officer who makes it is the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in the country making the demand of extradition, and it should declare that the documents to which it is attached are properly and legally authenticated according to the laws of the country from which the fugitive escaped, so as to entitle them to be received as evidence for similar purposes by the tribunals of that country.” Extradition of Muller, (1863) 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 501.
See notes under section 5 of the Act of Aug. 3, 1882, 22 Stat. L. 215, ch. 378, infra.
Sec. 5272. [Surrender of the fugitive.] It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, under his hand and seal of office, to order the person so committed to be delivered to such person as shall be authorized, in the name and on behalf of such foreign government, to be tried for the crime of which such person shall be so accused, and such person shall be delivered up accordingly; and it shall be lawful for the person so authorized to hold such person in custody, and to take him to the territory of such foreign government, pursuant to such treaty. If the person so accused shall escape out of any custody to which he shall be committed, or to which he shall be delivered, it shall be lawful to retake such person in the same manner as any person accused of any crime against the laws in force in that part of the United States to which he shall so escape, may be retaken on an escape. [R. S.]
Act of Aug. 12, 1848, ch, 167, 9 Stat. L. 302. Review of proceedings by the secretary of
An extradition warrant issued under this state. – Where extradition proceedings are section is not a warrant of arrest; and if a certified to the secretary of state, he has aunew arrest is to be made, it must be upon an thority to review them, and his discretion other proceeding before a judicial officer or extends to a review of every question therein commissioner under sec. 5270. Vance's Case, presented. (1881) 17 Op. Atty.-Gen. 184. (1866) 12 Op. Atty.-Gen. 75.
Sec. 5273. [Time allowed for extradition. Whenever any person who is committed under this Title or any treaty, to remain until delivered up in pursuance of a requisition, is not so delivered up and conveyed out of the United States within two calendar months after such commitment, over and above the time actually required to convey the prisoner from the jail to which he was committed, by the readiest way, out of the United States, it shall be lawful for any judge of the United States, or of any State, upon application made to him by or on behalf of the person so committed, and upon proof made to him that reasonable notice of the intention to make such application has been given to the Secretary of State, to order the person so committed to be discharged out of custody, unless sufficient cause is shown to such judge why such discharge ought not to be ordered. [R. S.]
Act of Aug. 12, 1848, ch. 167, 9 Stat. L. in jail without trial for more than two 303.
months, when it is shown that, had reasonable Reasonable diligence not shown. The fact diligence been exercised, such officer might that an officer of the demanding country is on have arrived before the application, and no his way hither to take the prisoner back to sufficient cause is shown why the coming of such country is not ground for refusing a the officer has been so long delayed. In re discharge under this section to a party who, Dawson, (1900) 101 Fed. Rep. 253. as a fugitive from justice, has been detained
Sec. 5274. [Continuance of prorisions limited.] The provisions of this Title relating to the surrender of persons who have committed crimes in foreign