are admissible which are made by a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it. The statements of a conspirator, made after the conspiracy has ceased to exist, either by success or failure, and which are merely narrative of past events (though in form a confession, i. e., an admission of the conspiracy), are not receivable against a fellow conspirator, unless the latter was present when they were made and heard them, and expressly or by implication acquiesced in them. On the other hand, declarations made after the conspiracy are always admissible against the declarant, the jury being instructed to disregard them as far as they refer to other persons." A declaration by one conspirator made at any time while the conspiracy exists is not 46 N. W. 764; State v. Anderson, 92 N. Car. 732; Hunter v. State, 112 Ala. 77, 21 So. 65; Grogan v. State, 63 Miss. 147, 151; Sanderson v. State, 169 Ind. 301, 82 N. E. 525; Shiflett v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 530, 102 S. W. 1147; State v. Austin, 183 Mo. 478, 82 S. W. 5. 4 Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 516, 36 S. W. 947; People v. Oldham, III Cal. 648, 44 Pac. 312; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 So. 182, 48 Am. St. 267; Schwen v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 368, 35 S. W. 172; State v. Duffy, 124 Mo. 1, 27 S. W. 358; Everage v. State, 113 Ala. 102, 21 So. 404; State v. Tice, 30 Ore. 457, 48 Pac. 367; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 309, 36 L. ed. 429, 12 Sup. Ct. 617; State v. Dean, 13 Ired. (N. Car.) 63; Patton v. State, 6 Ohio St. 467; Rowland v. State, 45 Ark. 132, 135; State v. McGraw, 87 Mo. 161, 164; State v. Thibeau, 30 Vt. 100; State v. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39; Heine v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. St. 145; Reg. v. Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297, 310, 311; Benton v. State, 78 Ark. 284, 94 S. W. 688; Frazier v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 76 S. W. 28, 25 Ky. 461; State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98, 75 S. W. 979; State v. Myers, 198 Mo. 225, 94 S. W. 242; Chicago &c. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770; State v. Dickerhoff, 127 Iowa 404, 103 N. W. 350; Choice v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 285, 106 S. W. 387; Gambrell v. Commonwealth, 130 Ky. 513, 113 S. W. 476; State v. Horseman, 52 Ore. 572, 98 Pac. 135; Miller v. State, 139 Wis. 57, 119 N. W. 850; Chapline v. State (Ark.) 95 S. W. 477; Berry v. State, 122 Ga. 429, 50 S. E. 345; State v. Philips, 73 S. Car. 236, 53 S. E. 370; State v. Walker, 124 Iowa 414, 100 N. W. 354; Wallace v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 318, 87 S. W. 1041; Nelson v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 274, 87 S. W. 143; Commonwealth v. Ellis (Ky., 1909), 118 S. W. 973; Wright v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 447, 50 S. W. 940; Smith v. People, 38 Colo. 509, 88 Pac. 453; Wiley v. State (Ark., 1909), 124 S. W. 249; State v. Smith (Ore., 1909), 106 Pac. 797. 7 admissible against another merely because the offense for which the latter is on trial preceded it. The several successive crimes committed during the conspiracy are regarded merely as the parts of one indivisible whole. An exception to the general rule may be mentioned here. At common law proof of the guilt of the principal is required on the trial of a person as an accessory to a crime. Hence of necessity the principal's confession, though in form a declaration made after the conspiracy, is admissible at the trial of a confederate as an accessory, whether tried jointly or separately, but only to show the guilt of the principal as such. § 494. Order of proving conspiracy to let in declarations.-The general rule is that the existence of the conspiracy must be proved, at least prima facie, to the satisfaction of the judge, before the declarations or acts are admitted in evidence. Many authorities, however, hold that the order of the proof is discretionary with the court, and that the court may, for the sake of convenience, admit the declarations at any time during the trial on the promise to prove the existence of the conspiracy and the connection of the defendant therewith subsequently.10 This is particularly the case Card v. State, 109 Ind. 415, 9 N. 970; People v. Donnolly, 143 Cal. 394, E. 591. 8 * United States v. Hartwell, 3 Cliff. (U. S.) 221, 26 Fed. Cas. 15318. 'Belcher v. State, 125 Ind. 419, 420, 25 N. E. 545; Ford v. State, 112 Ind. 373, 14 N. E. 241; Card v. State, 109 Ind. 415, 418, 9 N. E. 591; Tarbox v. State, 38 Ohio St. 581, 584; Casey v. State, 37 Ark. 67, 85; McGraw v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 20 S. W. 279, 14 Ky. L. 344; Amos v. State, 96 Ala. 120, 125, 11 So. 424; Horton v. State, 66 Ga. 690, 693; Cook v. State, 169 Ind. 430, 82 N. E. 1047; Wallace v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 318, 87 S. W. 1041; Schultz v. State, 133 Wis. 215, 113 N. W. 428; Schutz v. State, 125 Wis. 452, 104 N. W. 90; Proctor v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 254, 112 S. W. 770; People v. Carson, 155 Cal. 164, 99 Pac. 51-UNDERHILL CRIM. EV. 77 Pac. 177; State v. Crofford, 121 Iowa 395, 96 N. W. 889; Ripley v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 126, 100 S. W. 943; State v. Roberts, 201 Mo. 702, 100 S. W. 484; Wiley v. State (Ark., 1909), 124 S. W. 249. 10 State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa 444, 66 N. W. 746; Hall v. State, 31 Fla. 176, 188, 189, 12 So. 449; State v. Ward, 19 Nev. 297, 308, 10 Pac. 133, 7 Crim. L. Mag. 748; State v. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N. W. 120; Avery v. State, 10 Tex. App. 199, 210; State v. Anderson, 92 N. Car. 732, 748; State v. McGee, 81 Iowa 17, 46 N. W. 764; State v. Cardoza, 11 S. Car. 195, 237; State v. Grant, 76 Mo. 236; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195, 197; Schultz v. State, 133 Wis. 215, 113 N. W. 428; People v. Bunkers, 2 Cal. App. 197, where establishing the conspiracy depends upon proving a large number of facts or a vast amount of circumstantial evidence and the existence of the conspiracy be inferred from numerous apparently independent facts and circumstances.11 84 Pac. 364, 370; Cook v. State, 169 691, 96 N. W. 649; State v. Lewis, 51 Ore. 467, 94 Pac. 831; People v. Emmons, 7 Cal. App. 685, 95 Pac. 1032. 11 State v. Winner, 17 Kan. 298, 305; Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 238, 12 N. E. 865, 17 N. E. 898, 3 Am. St. 3201. $495. International extradition-Treaties and statutory regulations.-The demand and the return of fugitives from justice as between independent nations and states are, in the absence of treaties providing for the reciprocal return of such persons, wholly a matter of international comity. The law of nations imposes no obligation upon the sovereign state in which a person charged with crime has sought an asylum, to return him to the officials of the state against the law of which he has offended.1 But often because of the principles of international comity, as it is termed, or in other words because of the expectation that the favor granted by the asylum state would be reciprocated by the authorities of the state which demands the return of the fugitive from its criminal jurisdiction, persons have been returned in the 1 836. Ex parte McCabe, 46 Fed. 363, 12L. R. A. 589; In re Cook, 49 Fed. 833, absence of treaty to meet criminal charges pending against them in the country of their domicil. At the present time treaties exist between the United States and nearly all civilized states, by virtue of which all persons charged with certain crimes therein specified may be returned to the country whence they have fled to the United States. These treaties provide what evidence shall be necessary in any case to procure the extradition of the accused. The statutes of the United States provide that all hearings in extradition cases shall be held on land, in a room or office which is easily accessible to the public. If the person whose extradition is sought shall file an affidavit that he can not go to trial without the evidence of certain witnesses, showing also what he intends to prove by them, and that he is not possessed of sufficient means and is actually unable to pay the fees of such witnesses, the judge or commissioner, before whom the hearing is had, may order that the witnesses shall be subpoenaed, the costs to be paid as similar fees are paid in the case of witness subpoenaed in behalf of the United States. § 496. Burden of proof and amount of evidence required in inter national and interstate extradition to show criminality and other essential facts.—The burden of proof to show criminality, and all other facts which will warrant the return of the alleged 12 Statutes at L. 199, 15 Statutes at L. 688; Hayti, 13 Statutes at L. 711; Republic of Dominica, 15 Statutes at L. 473; Italy, 11 Statutes at L. 629, 16 Statutes 767, 24 Statutes at L. 1001; Salvador, 18 Statutes at L. 693, 796; Nicaragua, 17 Statutes at L. 815; Peru, 18 Statutes at L. 719; Orange Free State, 18 Statutes at L. 751; Ecuador, 18 Statutes at L. 756; Belgium, 18 Statutes at L. 804, 22 Statutes at L. 972; Ottoman Empire, 19 Statutes at L. 572; Spain, 19 Statutes at L. 650; 22 Statutes at L. 991; Netherlands, 21 Statutes at L. 769; Japan, 24 Statutes at L. 1015. See, also. United States Revised Statutes, 88 5270-5280.. |