Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/48

 36 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The commissioner, however, certifies that the word "extradi- tion" was interlined after the conclusion of the testimony, and without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. I doubt the power of the commissioner to make this amend- ment at the close of the proceedings, and after his attention had been called to the defect. If this can be rightfully done, then almost any defect in the proceedings might be amended after the attention of the commissioner had been called to it. For the purpose of this case, therefore, I will treat the com- plaint as it stood before the amendment was made. I think that in a complaint before a commissioner, and in the sub- sequent proceedings before him, he ought to be described as a commissioner of the circuit court of the United States, specially authorized by said court to take cognizance of applications for extradition, or by words of similar import, since he is not authorized by virtue of his general appoint- ment as commissioner of the circuit court to assume juris- diction of this class of cases. Eev. St. § 5270. �In the case of Re Farez, 1 Blatchf. 345, objection was taken to the proceedings on the ground that the warrant did not show that the commissioner was appointed by the court to issue the particular warrant, but it did appear upon the face of the warrant that he was appointed to issue warrants in ail cases of extradition falling within the acts in question, and it was held sufficient. It had been previously held, however, in a case against the same party, that a warrant which did not show upon its face that the commissioner issuiug it was au- thorized to act in extradition cases was void. Re Farez, 7 Blatchf. 34; see, also, Ira Re MacdonneU, 11 Blatchf. 86. �In the cage of the United Statesy. Stowell, 2 Curtis, 153, an indictment for obstructing the marshal in the service of war- rant for the rendition of Anthony Burns was quashed, upon the ground that the warrant set forth simply that it was issued by a commissioner of the circuit court, without averring that he was such a commissioner, as was particu- larly described in the act of September, 1850; and it was further held that such defect could not be aided by referring ��� �