THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1934 AN EXTRADITION TANGLE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21765, 3 April 1934, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1934 AN EXTRADITION TANGLE

The Insull case will go into history as one of the most unusual in extradition procedure. By a decision of the Turkish Cabinet, an attempt is ; being made to end it, but complications may yet arise to prevent the arm of United States law from laying hold of a memorably elusive fugitive from justice. For more than a year this fugitive, Samuel Insull, an American commercial magnate, has made his home in Greece, whither he went by virtue of a passport regularly furnished before his business affairs became a subject of legal investigation in his home country. Charged with fraud under its bankruptcy laws, he remained in his Mediterranean refuge until recently, when the Greek Government ordered him to leave. Thereupon, taking passage by a Greek steamer he had chartered, he went to the Dardanelles, after announcing his destination as Abyssinia, via French Somaliland. Now, within Turkish boundaries in the harbour of Constantinople, he has encountered fresh difficulties, for the Turkish Cabinet has decided to grant the demand of the United States for his extradition. It appears, however, that summary apprehension of him is legally impossible; the vessel is free to depart at any moment prior to an order of a Turkish court of law for its detention, and this order cannot be made without due process, which will take some time. Meanwhile the Greek legation at Constantinople, acting on Government instructions from Athens, is taking steps to test the bearing of international law on the presumed right of the Turkish Cabinet to detain a Greek vessel in waters that are under the control of the International Straits Commission, and there is a possibility that the captain of the vessel may refuse to surrender the refugee. Thus the long duel between the United States and Greece has unexpectedly been entered by a third party, unwelcome to one of the combatants, and the outcome is uncertain. To say the least, the case has assumed such interest and importance that international jurists may find in it much material for discussion, while it may strain relations between Greece and Turkey. This particular case has seriously disturbed official relations between the United States and Greece. When Washington made application in December of 1932 for the extradition of Samuel Insull, the Greek Supreme Conn;, after a protracted hearing, refused the request, a majority of the bench of judges holding that deliberate intention to evade the bankruptcy laws of the United States had not been proved. A second application was made last October. This also was rejected, all the affidavits submitted in its support being thrown out. It was understood then that the American exfinancier, a man 74 years of age, intended to make Greece his permanent domicile ; he was popular in the country, it was said, and purposed taking a Greek name, becoming a Greek citizen and standing as a candidate for the Greek Parliament. But the United States Government was not prepared to let the matter rest. It had cancelled Insull's passport some months before, and therefore believed that, as he could not go to any other country with which the United States had an extradition treaty, for such transfer would subject him to arrest, he would remain in Greece until other steps could be j taken. What these might be was not j clear;; but the American Minister at Athens delivered under instructions a note condemning the Greek Government and its judges, and denouncing the treaty. After that, efforts were made by Washington to persuade the Greek Government to deport Insull as an undesirable alien —an administrative rather than a judicial proceeding. This the Greek (Government refused to do. However, there was still hope in Washington that the use of political pressure would succeed, particularly that the permit allowing the accused to remain on Greek soil would not be renewed alter its expiry at the end of 1933. This hope was eventually realised in so far that the Greek Prime .Minister was understood to say that Insull's presence was detrimental to his country's friendly relations with a nation fairly treating 300,000 Greek residents, and that he would endeavour to find a way to deliver the accused to American justice. The order to depart followed

—-with the rather strange sequel

now happening. Whatever the eventual outcome, the case is bound to attract wide notice. If may even cause the whole network of extradition treaties in the world to be critically scanned. They are quite a modern innovation. At one time nations were reluctant to deny asylum to fugitives from justice. They felt no corporate responsibility for good conduct anywhere beyond their own boundaries, and 'jven the remarkable development of transport, facilities during last century could but, tardily break

down this form of insularity. In the long hesitation of Great Britain to deliver up fugitives was an enthusiasm for championing the oppressed, especially the politically oppressed, and the United States shared this feeling. In the United States a departure from this attitude was particularly hindered by the formal difficulty of deciding whether the right to make extradition treaties resided in the Federal Government or in the constituent States. Gradually the network of such treaties came into being, until they became a general rule. However, their operation has not yet been cleared of difficulties, for different codes of law persist and sreneral agreement about extraditable offences is as yet beyond reach, to say nothing of agreement as to procedure. From the Insull case, whatever the fortune or misfortune of this allegedly fraudulent American, wid.c consequences may ensue.