S. U. S.. 570.) In both countries it is held that the magistrate. to whom application is first made for a warrant of arrest. and the court afterwards on habeas corpus. is entitled to go into the facts with a view to determine whether the offense with which the refugee Is charged is political in character or the acts constititing it were incident to a revolutionary or other political movement. It is perfectly clear. accordingly. that no nation can be heard to say that the refusal of another to surrender one accused by the demanding country of a crime that is political in character is guilty of "aggression" against the former. or that such conduct is "offensive action or procedure." If the nation afforling asylum is under no obligation to surrender. if it would subject itself to universal scorn and obloquy if It did surrender. how can the nation from whicl the refugee fled assert that its refusal to surrender is "offensive action or procedure"? And what reason is there to believe that any body of representatives of the enlightened nations of the earth. such as the council of the league. would admit such a claim should any nation have the hardilhood. not to say effrontery. to assert it? I am not surprised that the Senator from Massachusetts is against the covenant. believing either that it annihilates the right of asylum in the case of political refugees or that there is in it any language which. even upon a strained construction. would have that effect. I should be against the league. too. if I held the view he has expressed. as quoted. and I know of no one on this side of the Chamber. or upon the other. for that mattei. who. were the idea lie has advanced admissible at all. would give it his support. It is inconceivable to me how any such conclusion could have been arrived at by the able Senator from Massachusetts had he studied the covenant with an impartial mind. not to say a sympathetic predilection.
Keywords matched
refugee refugees