Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/322

108 FEDERAi RBPOETEB. �It "was held by this court, in In re Heîhrîch, 5 BlatcM. 4rl4, that the aet of 1860 enlarged the elass of documentary evidence which might be adduced in support of the charge of criminality, by providing for the admission of any depositions, warrants, or other papers, or copies of the same, authenticated as specified in the act of 1860. �. Then came the Eevised Statutes, § 6371 which, as it stood until 1876, provided as foUows : "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 at- tested 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 reviewed for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party escaped. The certifi- catre of the principal diplomatie or consular officer of the United States, resident in such foreign country, shall be proof that any paper or other document so offered is authen- ticated in: the manner required by this section." �In In re Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 50l, before this court in 1875, it was held that section 5271 was in force in lieu of the act of 1848, in regard to copies of the depositions on which an original warrant of arrest was granted abroad, but that the act of 1860 was still in force, after the enactment of the Ee- vised Statutes, in regard to the admission in evidence of ail depositions, warrants, and other papers, or copies thereof, ex- cept the copies mentioned in section 5271. In consequence of as uggestion made in the case of Stupp that section 5271 had changed the law in regard to copies of the depositions on which an original warrant was issued abroad, instead of re-enacting it, and that the act of 1860 had not been re- «nacted in the Eevised Statutes, the act of June 19, 1876, (19 U. S. St. at Large, 597,) was passsd. That act amenda section 5271 so as to read as follows: �"In every case of complaint and of a hearing, upon the re- ����