The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-18
Tho Hitch I'm tho Surrender Of Wins
Iow-The Extradttion Treaty.

Io~-The Extradstiou Treaty.
The Extradition Treaty with Great Britain
would seem to have become dead letter in
consequence of a punctilio exacted by the
British government and refused by our own.
1t is not disputed that the crime Of Winslow
is case within the treaty, that the demand
has been made in due form through the APP
propriate channels, nor that the proof is
sufficient to warrant his surrender. But the
British government, while processing its
willingness to give him up on the
charge of forgery, makes it con-
dition that our government shall give
pledge or assurance that Winslow will
not be tried for any other crime. AS
the treaty itself imposes no such condition
and puts no restriction on the operation of
our criminal laws Secretary Fish refuses
such pledge and denies tho right of the
British government to require it. Even II
he were disposed to accede to this unprecc-
denied demand Mr.. Fish has no authority
to do so, for he is bound by the laws of his
own country and cannot go beyond them
If Winslow were surrendered he would come
within the jurisdiction of the State OF Massa-
chusetts, over whose criminal Jurisprudence
the federal Executive has no control. ii
Winslow has committed other crimes in
that State he is liable to be tried for
them within its jurisdiction. No fed
eral officer is empowered to say to
Massachusetts District Attorney that
he shall not prosecute, nor to n Massachusetts
Grand Jury that it shall not indict nor to
Massachusetts Court that it shall not try and
sentence any person within its limits for tho
violation Of any of its laws. The Secretary
of State is entirely helpless, even if he wore
inclined to give the required pledge and be-
lieved it in conformity with the treaty. The
Governor of Massachusetts might perhaps
promise to direct noue prosequi if an in
dictment should be found against Winslow
for another crime, or he might promise to
pardon him in case of conviction but such
promise would be nugatory, because it
could not bind his successor. and Massachu-
sets elects its Governor every year. Mr.. Fish
stands on strong ground in refusing to COM
ply with this demand.
The demand is without precedent as be-
tween these two governments although the
Extradition Treaty has been in force thirty
four years, and numerous surrenders have
been made under it on both sides. Even the
statute under which Great Britain processes
to be acting is six years old. and this is the
first instance of its being strained to such
use. 1t seems absurd to set up municipal
statute of 1870 against the treaty of 1912, for
pre-existing treaty cannot be amended by
the local law of one of the countries. 1t
requires the consent of both parties
to treaty to alter it in the slight
est particular; but in this instance
either party terminates the treaty at
pleasure by simply giving notice to tae
other If Great Britain wishes to abrogate the
Extradition Treaty let her give the proper
notice but she is not acting in respectful
spirit toward the United States when she
makes chicaning attempts to explain away
the treaty or to give it sense different from
stood and executed it for more than one
third of a century. Thus far our govern
ment is entirely right and that of England
wholly wrong
But if we had no extradition treaty with
Great Britain and were now, for the first
great deal to be said in favor of the
British view on the point Immediately
in dispute. 1t is altogether fit and rea-
sonable, apart from existing treaty obliga-
tons, that criminals should be tried
only for the specific offences for which they
are extradited. The intercourse of nations
should be frank and honest, without any
approach to duplicity or sharp practice. TO
demand the surrender of criminal on one
charge and then proceed to try him on
another is not consistent with candor and
fair dealing. The British statute of 1870
requiring the government to guard against
this sort of disingenuousness in future trea-
ties is unobjectionable, except in so far as
it is construed to be retroactive and to mod
ify preceding engagements. If the treaty of
1912 conflicts with the policy meant to be
established by the statute of 1870 the proper
course for Great Britain is to give notice to
the United States and terminate the treaty
instead OF making m unwarranteu attempt
to amend it by forcing upon it different
Interpretation from that which it has borne
for SO long period.
1t may be asked whether our Executive
would not be as powerless to give tho re-
CURED guarantee under new treaty as hc
is under the present. Undoubtedly he
would be, without further Legislation by
Congress. 1t is within the competency of
Congress to authorize tho treaty making
power to make such pledge, but the act
should follow the new treaty, not precede it,
in pursuance of the ordinary usage in pass
treaty. The authority of Congress to pass
such law and, to the extent required by
the treaty, annul proceedings in the State