The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

POST.—lndependently of the objections recently
taken by the French Government to the Extradition
Treaty at present existing between this country and
France, and dismissing for the moment from consi-
deration the rumour that these objections are
prompted by a desire to substitute a treaty more in
accordance with the political necessities of the
French empire, it is well worth while to inquire into
the scope and object of existing treaties of thiS kind,
and, if possible, to determine within what limits and
under what restrictions their operation should be
confined by States desirous of being returned inde-
pendent. As every State possesses exclusive juris-
diction within its own dominions but_at the same
time has nb authority to punigli the subjects -of a
foreign Power for offences committed- beyond the
limits of its territory, the only possible means by
which a criminal escaping from justice to a foreign
land can be brought to account for his misdeeds is
by his extradition, by the people in whose territories
he has sought refuge, to the particular State from
which he has fled. As, however, every nation bas
an interest in the suppression of crime, arrangements
came to be made between different States for the
surrender of criminals seeking refuge in their re-
spective territories, the particular offences for whose
commission the extradition of a fugitive might be
demanded being, however, defined with great pre-
cision, and being invariably of those classes which
are distinguished by their atrocity. So far back as
the year 1174, an Extradition Treaty was concluded
between England and Scotland ; in 1308 one of a
similar kind was made between England and
France, and some seventy years later a treaty was
entered into between France and Savoy, which
went the length of providing for the surrender of
criminals, even though they should happen to be
the subjects of the country to which they had fled.
Irrespective, however, of any special treaties, it
has been held by some of the most distinguished
public jurists, Grotius and Vattel among the num-
ber, that every State is bound to deny an asylum
to criminals, and Chancellor Kent says in his com-
mentaries, " The language of those authorities
is clear and explicit, and the law and usage
of nations as declared by them rest on the
plainest principles of justice." The tendency of
modern decision is, however, otherwise. In the
United States it seems to have become settled law
that fugitives from justice, however heinous their
crimes, cannot be surrendered except in pursuance
of a treaty; and in the case of the- Creole, argued
before the House of Lords in 1842, theiy.dges, being
called on for their opinions, declared thaw neither
English law nor international law authorised the
extradition of criminals of any degree, the right to
demaid or surrender depending exclusively on spe-
cial treaty. The principle may therefore be taken
as established that the obligations of extradition
rest solely on express stipulation. But the opinion
of the early jurists in respect to the moral obliga-
tion of States to surrender criminals, and the trea-
ties which have at various times been concluded
between different States providing for their extra-
dition, have equally been based on the assumption
that the offences committed were of such a nature as
to be esteemed crimes by the laws of every civilised
State. As every Stat 3 has an equal interestin pro-
tecting, the lives and the property of the various
members of the community, it seemed monstrous
and impolitic that a murderer or a robber .should
secure absolute immunity from punishment by step-
ping across the frontier line which separated two
countries. But in respect to acts which were made
offences by the laws of a particular State the same
principle did not apply, and notably to offences of a
political character. An attempt to subvert the Go-
vernment of one State cannot, in the necessity of
things, be an offence against the laws of another
State; and although it might be urged that every
Government has an interest in the punishment of
persons guilty of treason, yet it is felt that each Go-
vernment is bound to secure its stability by its own
unaided exertions, and cannot justly call upon the
Government of other States to surrender to it those
who have attacked it in vain, and who, whilst resi-
dent beyond its territories, can do it no injury.
Again, an act which would in one country be the
mere exercise of an established right, might in an-
other be deemed a grave political crime, and it
would be clearly at variance with every principle of
humanity and justice for a State to surrender a
fugitive seeking.its hospitality, who, judged by the
spirit as well as the letter Of its laws,- had been
guilty of no offence. We are now putting out of
account those particular principles on which the
Constitution of this country rests, and which recog-
nise the right of every people to choose their own
form of Government, and are diametrically opposed
to the principles advocated by those who concluded
the Holy Alliance. Having thus fixed the basis on
which the right of extradition rests, and the class
of cases in which it may justly be exercised, it only
remains to ascertain the mode in which it should be
enforced. It is clearly not sufficient for the State
making the demand of extradition to prefer an ac-
cusation against an individual. If this was all that
was needed, a State might obtain the surrender of
a political offender by simply accusing him of
murder. Some form of judicial procedure is conse-
quently necessary as a preliminary to the extra-
dition of a supposed criminal, and-some diversity of
opinion is believed to exist in respect to the prin-
ciples which should govern this introductory inquiry.
On this point we shall again quote the language of
Kent. He says, "It is the duty of the Government
to surrender up a fugitive upon demand after the
civil magistrate shall have ascertained the existence
of reasonable grounds for the charge, and sufficient
to put the accused upon his trial." n other words,
the form of procedure prescribed is similar to that
which would be adopted by the State, in which a
criminal has taken refuge,:in dealing with one of its
own citizens under similar circumstances previously
to putting him upon his trial. The practice laid
down by Kent is that which is at the present day
universally adopted in every State, and is one which
is,,so manifestly reasonable and just that it calls for
nApecial vindication. Such, then, being the re-
ceived principles _which govern the extradition of
criminals, it is almost needless to say that this
country could not consistently with its dignity or
its independence consent to their being seriously
modified. If the existing treaty between France
and England should not be renewed, each country
would become an asylum for criminals of every
degree who succeeded in escaping from the other.
If, however, it is renewed, the list of crimes desig-
nated may possibly be increased ; but neither
directly nor indirectly can it be made to include
political offences. Finally, in respect to the pre-
liminary judicial investigation, it can henceforth, as
heretofore, be governed solely by the principles of
English law when the fugitive is in this country,
and of French law when he is in France. If with
a treaty concluded on these bases the French
Government are not satisfied, they must accept
all the responsibility of putting an end to the
existing one.
THE "ANGLO-AMERICAN TIMES" ON THE MEXICAN
QUESTION.—The late intelligence from America re-
garding Mexican affairs indicates that a crisis is-ra-
pidly approaching. It is said, in the first place, that
General Logan has definitely accepted the appoint-
ment of Minister to the Mexican Republic, and that
his appointment, and the resolutions of sympathy
with the Republican cause in Mexico lately intro-
duced into Congress, have been the subject of a
lengthy correspondencd between the French Minis-
ter at Washington and Mr. Seward. Finally, it is
added, the Principal Secretary of the French Lega-
tion at Washington has left hastily for-Europe on a
special mission to Paris, and it is rumoured that if
the American Government continues its present
policy towards Mexico the French .Minister will
demand his passports and leave the country.
There is no questioning the fact that it is not
only possible, but not at all improbable, that the
present...complications will, eventuate in a war .be-
tween the United States and France. It will be
remembered that on a recent occasion when
an orator in New York spoke warmly against the
French usurpation in Mexico, General Grant,
who is the highest authority with the American
people on questions pertaining to military matters,
and whose words carry great weight, fully endorsed
the remarks of the speaker in regard to the condi-
tion of things in that unhappy country. The Gene-
ral has long been remarkable for his reticence on all
political topics, and hence peculiar significance was
attached to his words, which were generally accepted
as a foreshadowing of the policy of the Government
of which be is the :chief military adviser. But now
we learn that he has spoken his sentiments regarding
Mexico in terms which do not admit of any con-
struction except that of immediate war with France,
unless France should conclude to withdraw her
troops from Mexico. On the 27th of last
month, at Richmond, general Grant is stated
to have declared emphatically that " the advent
of Maximilian to the pretended throne of
Mexico was a 'part of the rebellion, and his
immediate expulsion should be a part of its his-
tory. France did not ask the consent of the
United States to establish a throne in Mexico,
and the United States should not consult France
in re-establishing the Republic." He added that
" France had no right to interfere in the Mexican
question, but if she would involve herself in a war
on this point, now is the time to have it, while the
American army and navy are organised, and before
American commerce is again afloat on every sea."
If this language really fell from the lips of General
Grant, then there is reason to fear that the peace
of the world will very soon be disturbed by a rupture
between the United States and France. There is no
question but General Grant not only reflects the
almost unanimous sentiment of the American people
in regard to the French interference in Mexico, but

that he also reflects the ',views of the United States
Government. The only question, indeed, with
Americans is, whether this is the proper time for
them to interfere in the Mexican question. It is
well known that President Johnson's policy is
peace. He will not declare war against France,
but public opinion may force him to take such steps
in relation to Mexico as will compel France to
choose between the alternative of war with
America or withdrawal from Mexico. We
strongly incline to the opinion that, if war
takes place, the fault will not be with the American
Government nor the American people. There, are
many considerations which will prevent the Ameri-
cans from going to war at the present juncture.
They have a good many important matters of
domestic policy to settle before they enter upon
foreign business. Their currency is not yet in a
perfectly satisfactory condition, and, while it pre-
sents no very serious difficulties as things stand
now, another great war would derange it
almost beyond remedy. The revenue system also
needs improvement. The American people are not
over-taxed, but the taxes do not press equally upon
all classes and all interests. The late rebellious
States have been thoroughly beaten, and are now
sueing for re-admission; but they are not yet re-
stored to their proper relations with the National
Government. The labour question in the Southern
States has still to be settled, and the political rights
and privileges of the colored population determined.
These matters are quite enough to engross the states-
manship of the country for the next twelve months,
and they are so many powerful arguments against
war. There is yet another grave matter to be con-
sidered in connection with this question. If the
French are compelled or persuaded to leave Mexico,
what is then to be done ? The last half century of
misgovernment and anarchy in Mexico have
satisfied the world that the Mexicans, left
to themselves, are incapable of self-govern-
ment. When Maximilian is ejected, as
he surely will be, sooner or later, civil war and
anarchy will be renewed ; for political disorder and
insurrection are chronic diseases in the Mexican
body-politic. 'lf. the United States were to go to
war to free Mexico from a foreign Monarchical Go-
vernment -auk then leave it to be torn by internal
dissensions it -wOuld commit a blunder in statesman-
ship and a crime against humanity. The presence
of Maximilian, in Mexico is an insult and a menace
to the United States—his expulsion would be a mis-
fortune for Mexico. There is, then, but two pos-
sible plans for the Americans to adopt in the
premises. The first of these is, to bear the insult
and the degradation of permitting a European
despot to sit down on the American Continent ;
the second, to expel Maximilian, and establish an
American protectorate, over the country. If the
Americans are not *pared to do this, then they
had better leave Maximilian where he is. We
believe we shall but express the determination
of the American people and the American Govern-
ment if we declare that this is exactly the policy
which will be ultimately adopted in that country.
For obvious reasons, America can afford to wait a
little before taking up arms in defence of the Mexi-
can Republic. The Ruler of the French nation is
a wise monarch, and generally favorable to peace.
It is considered more than probable that Napoleon
may be induced to withdraw his troops from Mexico
of his own free will. If he should do so, there
would then be no excuse for American interference,
and the Mexican Republicans would be able to take
care of themselves ; but if the Empire of Mexico
continues to rely upon foreign bayonets for support,
a war with America is inevitable, sooner or later ;
and the result of a war would be either the
annexation of Mexico to the United States, or the
establishment of an American Protectorate over
that country.