Historic Legal Puzzles. had actually been tried and acquitted be fore the South Sea monarch whose subject he had killed. A writer, discussing the Botkin matter, has called to attention an English case of his torical importance. The case is of com paratively recent happening, and has to do with the state of the law in England as re gards the liability of foreigners in that country aiding or abetting in the commis sion of crime upon the continent of Europe. Referring to case and decision, the writer says : — "The well-known attempt of the Italian patriot, Orsini, to assassinate the Emperor Napoleon III took place on January 14, 1858. As the emperor was about to enter the opera house in the Rue Lepelletier in Paris, on the evening of that day, several small bombs or hand grenades were thrown at his carriage. Miraculously the explosion did not injure the emperor or empress, but it resulted in the death of eight persons and wounded one hundred and forty others. The bombs were manufactured in England, whence they were sent to Orsini. "This explosion is accredited with mo mentous results. It gave momentary pop ularity to the empire, but eventually con tributed to its downfall by hastening the war in Italy between France and Austria. But its consequences in England alone concern us. It was alleged that England was harbor ing the confederates of the criminal men ' placed outside of common justice and under the ban of humanity,' and the English authorities were urged to act. One of Orsini's confederates, Dr. Simon Bernard, a French refugee, was arrested in London and the question arose as to the punish
355
ment which could be meted out to him un der the law. There was a statute (9 George IV, chapter 21) providing for the indict ment in England of any of his majesty's subjects charged with homicide ' committed on land out of the United Kingdom,' but Sir Richard Bethell, the attorney-general in the Palmerston administration, then in power, was of opinion that this gave no authority to indict aliens in England committing acts abroad. On the 8th of February, 1858, therefore, Lord Palmerston brought in the conspiracy-to-murder bill, whose defeat produced the downfall of his administra tion. Upon the debates on this bill such legal authorities as Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord St. Leonards expressed the opinion that aliens could be prosecuted under the statute of George IV7, and that a conspiracy to murder abroad, accompanied by overt acts in Eng land, was indictable at the common law. Bernard was tried under the statute of George IV and acquitted on the evidence." The same writer presents a strikingly anomalous condition which may arise under American statute law. He points out that if a man in Maine sends an infernal machine to a man in Texas, which causes the re ceiver's death, the guilty party is not liable to prosecution in the State of Maine. If, however, he invites or persuades a human being to accomplish the death of the same victim in Texas, he may be indicted and punished in the courts of Maine. In other words, the direct accomplishment of his criminal purpose is not indictable, while the indirect accomplishment of the same purpose renders him subject to punishment at the hands of the law.
