The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-01


ment which has arisen in London concern
ing the extradition of criminals under the
Ashburton Treaty. For many years
since 1872 in fact--the extradition clause of
that treaty has worked smoothly, and no
complaints have arisen of injustice done or
attempted under it either in Great Britain
or here. 1t was we'll understood that neither
the British nor our own government would
use the privilege of extradition to secure
possession of persons charged with political
offences; and for the rest, as the demands
on either side were made in good faith, and
as the formalities observed obliged the gov
eminent demanding the surrender of per-
son charged with IN extraditable crime to
show such evidence of his guilt as would
have caused him to be apprehended and
held for trial under the laws OF the country
where he was found, if he had offended
those, neither injustice nor oppression was
to be feared
But suddenly oil this is changed. Wins
low, fugitive from this country, charged
with forgery, an extraditable crime, is found
in London his extradition is demanded
in regular form, and, to the general
amazement, the British government re-
fuses to give him up unless the
be tried for any other offence than that for
which his surrender is demanded. To the
general reader there is an appearance of JUS
tice in such demand, and it is necessary,
therefore, to explain that, first, no such con-
dition is contained in the Ashburton Treaty,
and second, the whole practice of both gov
ernments, from the conclusion of that treaty
until a very recent date, has been the con-
trary Of the condition now arbitrarily set up
by the British government. That is to say,
that government now demands change in
the treaty conditions under which extradi-
ton Of criminals has been for many years
granted by both sides, and demands this
change in an irregular, summary and extraor-
binary manner.
That the right of either the British or our
own authorities to try regularly extradited
criminal for other offences than that for
which he was surrendered has not hitherto
been questioned by either government is
shown by numerous cases. For instance,
one Heilbronn was extradited from the
United States for forgery and was tried in
England for larceny, which is not even an
extraditable offence under the treaty, and no
complaint was made by this government.
Won Earman, surrendered by the United
States on extradition to the Canadian author
tiles for forgery, was held for obtaining
money under false pretences; again not IN
extraditable offence, and our government did
not complain. Paxton, extradited to Canada
for forgery and tried there for "uttering"
forged paper, made the special plea that he
for which he was surrendered; but his plea
was overruled and he was tried and convicted
and the higher court affirmed the decision.
If it is objected that in these cases it was the 1
part Of the United States to make complaint
and objection, and that by not doing SO our
government could not bind that of Great
Britain, the reply is not only that such an
excuse is not valid against long course of
presidents, but that our courts have them
selves followed the same practice of trying
an offender for a crime different from that on
which he was extradited without complaint
from the British authorities. Thus Burley,
extradited from Canada on a charge of rob-
berry, was tried in this country for an assault
with intent to kill, and the British govern
ment raised no objections Caldwell, extra
dited for forgery, was tried here for bribing
an oficer-not even an extraditable offence
and in spite of his plea that the offence for
which he was surrendered was not men,
toned in the indictment, the Court held him,
and again no complaint from the British
government.
Such precedents would seem to settle the
whole question, and, indeed, until quite re-
Gently there has been no dispute and one of
the most eminent English authorities on the
subject said, in relation to the case of Bur-
ley, 1--WE admit in this country that if man
is bona .fde tried for an offence for. which he
was given up, there is nothing to prevent his
being subsequently tried for another offence,
either antecedently committed or not"
The refusal to surrender Winslow is put
by the British authorities upon the two
grounds-frst, that an act of Parliament,
passed in 1870, requires that extradition
shall be granted only upon nm engage
ment that the person surrendered shall
be tried only for the offence for
which he is extradited; and second,
that in the case Of Lawrence, surren-
dered to this country for forgery, it is
intended to try him for some other offence.
AS to the first excuse, an act of Parliament
cannot change a treaty, and no British court
has ever held that the act of 1870 could af-
feet the treaty of 1912 or any other treaty
not consonant with the act. AS to the Law
renee case, is it not little absurd to pretend
to base action in so important matter upon
what they in London may believe the United
States intend to do? In fact, as is we'll