In re Klein

• Decision Date: 24 November 1930
• Citation: In re Klein, 46 F.2d 85 (S.D. N.Y. 1930)
• Parties: In re KLEIN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

46 F.2d 85 (1930)

In re KLEIN.

District Court, S. D. New York.

November 24, 1930.

Max D. Steuer and Ben Herzberg, both of New York City, for Arthur J. Klein.

Edward H. Lockwood and Howard Thayer Kingsbury, both of New York City, for the British Consul General.

CAFFEY, District Judge.

I have conferred with the Commissioner and have listened to counsel for both sides in regard to bail.Under authority by which I am bound and on principle I think the result is the same.It seems to me inescapable.

We are dealing with a national of the demanding country.He seeks bail pending examination.Indisputably he is not entitled to it as of right.Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40, 23 S. Ct. 781, 47 L. Ed. 948.Undoubtedly also the court has power to grant it.Id.Nevertheless, we have been admonished to exercise the power very sparingly and only when the justification is pressing as well as plain.In re Mitchell (D. C.)171 F. 289;U. S. ex rel. McNamara v. Henkel(D. C.S. D. N. Y.January 25, 1912), 46 F.(2d) 84, per Hough, J.

Here I see nothing out of the ordinary.Customarily, when removal is resisted, several weeks must intervene after arrest before any European foreign office is prepared to present evidence in support of its application.If, because of the time requisite to get from London proof that is to be offered before the Commissioner, the alleged fugitive were now enlarged on bail, then there should be bail, when asked for, in practically every international extradition case.If such a rule were adopted, not alone would the judges exceed the proper limits of their authority as declared by the highest court, but manifestly they would incur grave...