Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/326

 813 I^DEBAL BEFOBTEB. �eign country. Bat there is nothing in the statuts which nec- essarily excludes oral proof authenticating the copies, or oral proof as to what the la w of the foreign country is as to such authentication, or oral proof that such oral authentication is according to the law of the foreign country, There is nothing in the statute which inakes such certificate of the United States diplomatie or consular officers the only competent proof that eithex the originals or the copies are authenticated in the manner required by the statute. Whether the origi- nals are offered, or copies are offered, it must appear that the originals would be received in the tribunals of the foreign country as evidence ôf the criminality of the person, in re- spect of the offence charged against him as committed there, if the inquiry as to such criminality were being had iu such foreign tribunals. Not only is the provision as to that efifect specifie as to the originals, but the provision in regard to copies is, twice, that they areto be copies of "such" originals; that is, copies of originals which would be received in the tri- bunals of the foreign country as auch evidence. �The certificate of Mr. Lowell in this case cannot be held to be in compliance with the statute. It certifies that the documents "are authenticated in the manner required by the statute of the United States." It ought to certify, in respect to the original depositions offered, that they are properly and legally authenticated, so as to entitle them to be received as evidence of the criminality of the person ap- prehended by the tribunals of Great Britain; and it ought to certify, in respect to the copies offered, that the originals of which they are copies would be received as such evidence, and that such copies are authenticated according to the law of Great Britain. Not only is the certificate of Mr. Lowell thuB defective, but it clearly appears, from the authentica- tions to which his certificates are appended, that the docu- ments are not authenticated in the manner required by the statute of the United States. In each of the three certificates of Mr. Lushington he certifies that the document "would be received as evidence of the criminality of a fugitive criminal from the United States charged before a tribunal in Great ����