The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-02
What Il tho Force OF Extradttion
Treatiest


was surrendered IRON England, by the
| English government on o demand made
under the treaty for the extradition OF
| persons committing certain offences enumer-
ated in the treaty. The prisoner was de-
| mandcd and surrendered as person who
was under Indictment or prosecution here for
| forging certain bond and affidavit On
| Saturday last the Grand Jury presented o
| large number of indictments against the same
| prisoner for other offences, and the District
| Attorney claims that he may be tried on
| these as well as on the one indictment in
respect to which his extradition was de-
| manded and obtained. The prisoner was
surrendered under the Treaty of 1912,
negotiated between Mr.. Webster and
/ treaty made by our goverement-we
| believe the first in the world-for the
mutual extradiuon of fugitives from JUS
| tice. If it is true, as asserted by Mr. Bliss,
that practice has grown up in England OF
| trying for offences other than that for which
| the party was demanded from and surrendered
by foreign government, provided only that
was the basis of the extradition, or If it is
true that such has been our practice, it still
remains q very grave question whether this
can be done consistently with the treaty. The
contract between Great Britain and the
United States, contained in the Treaty of
1912, is this-They mutually bind them
selves to "deliver up to justice" all persons
who. being charged with certain enumerated
crimes, committed within the jurisdiction of
either country, shall seek an ass lum or be
found within the territories of the other. But
to this engagement is appended the following
important proviso: -"Provided that this
shall only be done upon such evidence of
criminality as, according to the laws of
the place where the fugitive or person SO
charged shall be found, would justify his APP
prehension and commitment for trial. If the
crime or offence had been there committed .
| The crimes enumerated in the treaty are MUIR
der, assault with intent to commit murder,
piracy, arson, robbery and forgery, or the ut
| terance of forged paper. A man, then, is
enlarged" in the United States with having
committed forgery; and by charged" is
meant that he is publicly charged, and on
| public authority, or as we say, indicted He
| flies to England. OF course the charge
| must be specific; the evidence must fit the
charge; and it must be such evidence as
would justify his arrest and commitment for
trial in England If the offence had BEEN COM
mitted there. For the offence so charged and
so sustained by proof the fugitive is surren-
| dered; and that he is to be surrendered for
trial for that offence is clear from the
context of The treaty. Having been surren-
dered for trial for that offence, delivered up
| to Justice" under u certain specific charge,
is he also to be considered as surrendered tor
any and oil purposes for which the govern
ment obtaining his person may wish to hold
| or to deal with him? Mr.. Bliss claims that
he may be tried even for an offence for which
his extradition could not have been had, pro-
vided he is first In good faith, put on trial
for the offence for which he was surrendered
under the treaty. lie says that the govern
ment of Great Britain, under the advice of its
| law officers, has acted upon this view. II this
Is 40 they have adopted an incorrect practice.
| The treaty was made to be applied to certain
specified crimes, and to them only. When
President Tyler transmitted it to the Senate
for ratification, accompanied BY an Executive
message written by Mr.. Webster, he said
that in the careful and specific enumeration
of crimes in the treaty the object had been to
exclude all other offences. A man, therefore,
who is surrendered on public charge of ono
| of the crimes enumerated in the treaty is
surely not III the custody of the government
to which he is surrendered for trial for an
offence not enumerated in the treaty and for
which he could not have been demanded. II
he is liable to be tried, when the custody of
his person is once obtained, for anything but
the offence which was the basis Of his ex.radi-
ton, why go through the form Of putting him
frat on trial for that offence II the treaty
has no force after you get hold of him all
that you have to do is to get up an indictment
for some offence named in the treaty, as
forgery or arson, procure his surrender, and
then Try him for treason, libel, descrtion from
military service, or what not This inter-
probation will never do.
In the case Of this man Lawrence we have
no desire TO see him escape justice in respect
OF any of his doingg. But these extradihon
treaties, however beneficial for the interests OF
justice, are things to be carefully watched,
lest they may be used for purposes for which
they were never designed. A man commits
one forgery he is followed to foreign coun-
try, proof is offered TO the foreign govern
ment, and he is delivered up to justice" for
that offence. When lie Is brought back hers
it q found that lac has committed twenty other
forseres Sball he not b tried for the twenty
as we'll as for the one2 Yes, unless the con-
sequence would be that besides bsing tried
for the one forgery he may also be tried Tor
another offence that is not within the treaty at
Gil. II this consequence will snsus such