Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page



[No title]




EXAMINATION AND SURRENDER OF MULLER. The excitement in the Court-room at New York on the re-examination of Muller on the 27th ult. was intense. The prisoner, on entering, accompanied by his counsel, appeared totally indifferent to the charge against him. Amidst profound silence, Mr. Blankman said the questions arising in the case were intricate, and required careful attention, and asked for an ad- journment for a week, with the view of preparing his case. As a precedent he referred to the case of Anderson, who fled to Canada, after committing murder in the United States. This case was adjudi- cated upon in England, and resulted in the release of Anderson on the ground that he was a slave, and that the deed was committed in making his escape. He also referred to a murder committed on an American vessel by pirates and murderers who escaped to Liver- pool, and the case was adjourned from month to month, and the British Government declined to give up the prisoners. Another feature in the present case was that no finding of a coroner's inquest had been produced, but if the documents showed that a case of murder had been made out his honour's duty was clear; but if the case was one of manslaughter it did not fall within the treaty of 1842. His client asserted his innocence of the charge, and he thought the Court ought to grant a postponement. Mr. Marbury said it was not his honour's duty to try the guilt or innocence of the prisoner; but to ascertain if there was sufficient evidence to justify the committal of the prisoner. He did not wish to say anything harsh against the unfortunate man, but the case seemed so plain that the Court could not refuse to send the prisoner back to England, where he would have a fair trial according to the law of the land. Mr. Blankman maintained that the question was one of guilt-that was a preliminary question. Was it probable that the prisoner was guilty ? He was a German, and his fellow-citizens of America were in- terested in justice being done to him. It was not a question whether Mr. Seward should touch his bell and issue orders that the accused be spirited away secretly and without the forms of law; but the rights of the prisoner were to be guarded,. and hence his demand for postponement. His Honour did not think the interest of the prisoner would suffer if he refused the application. Mr. Schaffer then moved for prisoner's discharge, arguing that there were insuperable objections to his detention. The law must deem him innocent, and if he declared his intention of becoming a citizen the shield of the country would be thrown over him, and there was, in his opinion, a sublimity in the sudden awakening of England to revenge the blood of one of its citizens. He considered the treaty to be a viola- tion of the constitution. An amendment provided that no man should be put in peril of his life without indictment by the grand jury. The treaty of 1842 provided that fugitives should be rendered up on cer- tain conditions, and if the prisoner was rendered up he would be convicted before he was indicted. It was a principle of national law that a state of war nullified all treaties. True, it might be said, that there was no war between the two countries in their sovereign capacity, but there was between the people of the two countries. There were three sorts of war-private, public, and mixed war. Mixed war could only be carried on between a nation on one side and indi- viduals of a nation on the other, which was divided into solemn and unsolemn war. Englishmen who were committing depredations upon our commerce must be restrained by their Government, or they would be in a state of war with America, and to say that such a state of war did not exist with Great Britain, would be to forget the events of the past three years with England, which fact did away with the operation of treaties. He then reviewed the evi- dence against the prisoner, and contended that the accused was not one of the two men who entered the railway carriage with Mr. Briggs, and that there was no evidence to detain him. Mr. Blankman called Inspector Tanner, who de- posed I have seen Franz Muller. I should judge him to be five feet six inches. He has no beard. I should think he never had any. I do not call him a tall thin man, nor a thickset man. He has no whiskers nor any signs of having ever had any. This closed the case for the defence. Mr. Marbury said it was never a question for the courts to decide whether a treaty be in force or not; that was the prerogative of the executive. The ques- tion was whether the evidence was sufficient to justify his honour, as committing magistrate, in holding prisoner for trial. The evidence went to show that Mr. Briggs entered the railway carriage, and a few minutes afterwards was found moaning on the track suffering from wounds in the head, from which he died on that same night. Muller was absent from his usual lodgings. In the compartment of the railway car was found a hat known and proved to have belonged to Muller. Mr. Briggs's hat was gone, and when the prisoner was arrested a hat similar to Mr. Briggs's was found in his possession. A watch and chain be- longing to Mr. Briggs were missing, and two days after the murder Muller went to Mr. Death's and exchanged a chain answering the description of Mr. Briggs's, and Mr. Death positively identified the pri- soner as the man who exchanged the chain. He was also fully identified by Matthews. In regard to Mr. Lee's testimony concerning the two men seen in the same compartmert with'Mr. Briggs, there was nothing to show that the same two men remained there or in the train after it started. There seemed on the whole to be abundance of proof that Muller was the mur- derer. Mr. Marbury concluded by saying the chain of evidence was complete, not a link wanting to con- nect the prisoner with the commission of the crime with which he was charged, and called upon the commissioner to grant the necessary certificate of extradition in order that the case might undergo in- vestigation in England. Commissioner Newton then delivered his decision. He saidâMy simple duty in this case is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to enable me to remand the prisoner that be may have an opportunity of being tried where the crime was committed, and there prove his innoeence, or if guilty be punished. It is not necessary for me to determine absolutely his guilt. The question to determine is, has a crime been committed ? If so, is there a probable cause from the evidence to show that the party accused is the one who committed the crime? My duty is simple and plain. I do not desire to sit in judgment over this man; far be it from me. I wish it were in my power to discover a trace of innocence to justify me in withholding the certificate of extradiction, but I am free to say all the circumstances point fatally to the prisoner as the guilty man. So clear and distinct is the question of probable cause, that I cannot for one moment have a doubt as to the proper course to be pursued. Under these circumstances I am con- strained to grant the certificate, and the prisoner, therefore, stands committed. This decision was received by some of those present with evident astonishment, but Muller himself, whose demeanour throughout was more that of a spectator than a criminal, was not in the least moved. The prisoner was then handed over to the custody of the British officers, and will probably arrive in England on the 15th inst.




[No title]