Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Factor v. Laubenheimer — Opinion of the Court

Qualifying clauses are often used in treaties, statutes, and agreements where the meaning would be the same if they were omitted. Article 2 of the Convention of 1889 furnishes an example. It declares that no fugitive shall be surrendered for any offense of a political character. As no crime of that sort it listed, the provision is unnecessary. That clause, like the expression requiring criminality in both countries, is used, not to add or change meaning, but to emphasize and insure adherence to a well known general principle always held applicable in the absence of any such specification.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Factor v. Laubenheimer — Opinion of the Court

A less strained and entirely consistent construction is that urged by respondent, that the specification of the crime of 'receiving,' as a treaty offense, without qualification, evidenced an intention to dispense with the restriction applied to other treaty offenses, that they must be crimes 'by the laws of both countries.'
In choosing between conflicting interpretations of a treaty obligation, a narrow and restricted construction is to be avoided as not consonant with the principles deemed controlling in the interpretation of international agreements.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Factor v. Laubenheimer — Opinion of the Court

No reason is suggested or apparent why the solemn and unconditional engagement to surrender a fugitive charged with the named offense of which petitioner is accused should admit of any inquiry as to the criminal quality of the act charged at the place of asylum beyond that necessary to make certain that the offense charged is one named in the treaty.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature