New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-07-30


| trusted with the trial and punishment of
| the offender. Indeed, it is little less
than an insult to such government to
! assume that it would subject any person
thus surrendered to trials unauthorized or
penalties unwarranted. But so careful
have the trainers of extradition treaties
been, that they have specially enumerated
the crimes for which extradition shall be
demanded, and, with equal positiveness
have reserved the right of asylum to par
ties charged with mere political ofenses
With this exemption in view, the govern
ment of Great Britain should respect any
requisition made BY our government, well
knowing that such step would not be
taken unless the prosf against the &C
cused was clear or the presumption great.
Nor should there exist il the representa-
tives of the surrendering government any
sentimental dread that prosecution in the
premises would degenerate into persecu.
ton.
The trouble in the Winslow case was
extrinsic. It appears that man named
Lawrence was surrendered by Great
Britain to the government of the United
States on charge of forgery and that
after the surrender he was confronted
with an indictment in which he was
accused of smuggling. which is not one
of the extraditlon offensas. Mr.. Fish
states that the indictment was found
against Lawrence before the demand for
his extradition and maintains the right of
our government to try him, should it see
fit to do SO, on the additional charge
This gave rise to the assumption that
Winslow too, if surrendered, might be
tried on some other charge besides that
on which his surrender was demanded
and on this improbable assumption the
requisition IN his case was denied
Notvithst landing his technical plead
ings on behalf of liberty and right the
course purs ued by LORD Derby must in
o'lSsoly AStsN w O ucGIAI VI JuolAOo duu
the encouragement of crime Suppose
person should he surrendered on charge
Of forgery, and it should be found, after
he was brought within the jurisdiction Of
his own country that he was guilty also
of murder, would it not be absurd to con-
tend that for this greater crime he should
be held harmless because surrendered to
answer to a smaller crime. If the treaty
of 1912 be susceptible of such diverse
readings as those made by Lord Derby
and Mr.. Fish, it is clear that it requires
emendation. NJ eanwhile no interpreta-
ton should be made which would simply
serve as a shield to guilt All civilized
nations have common interest in seeing
that punishment shall follow crime, and
surely some discretion should be given to
such governments as those of the United
States and Great Britain in the treatment
of their own wrong-doers.
But says Lord Derby, though the gov
eminent of the United States might not
seek the surrender CT political refugees
through any indirect agency, yet the gov
eminent of Great Britain requires some
assurance that accused parties, such as
Winslow, would not, after extradision, be
yielded up to the authorities of some par.
ticular State, and be by them tried for of.
lenses not embraced in the demand for his
surrender. Mr.. Fish, it is urged, admits
that if the ofense be against the laws of
particular State, s'the Attorney General
of the United States has no power
to interfere, directly or indirectly; nor
has the President any right to con-
troll the proceedings, or even to par
don those tried and convicted. From
this admission it is argued that persons
surrendered on charges coming properly
within the provisions of the extradition
covenant are liable to be tried for offenses
of political or semi-po!itical character in
some single State, and from the conse-
uuences of such trial neither of the high
contracting parties to the treaty could eff
fectually shield him.
Now it must be obvious that the danger
here conjured up by the noble foreign
Secretary is entirely suppositit:ous.
Touching all political ofenses in this
country the authority of the federal gov
ars, ant nd E,-r
well observes, no administration would
dare to violate the rights OF political
asylum by obtaining prisoner on a
criminal charge and then trying him
for political ofense. Again, it is in
sisted by Lord Derby that the ofense on
which the demand for extradition is based,
must be proved according to the laws of
the surrendering country. Such rule
would prove not only mischievous source
of expense and delay, but be disrespectfnl
to the government making the demand.
International courtesy might properly as
sumo that no requisition for the surrender
Of a refugee will be made without good
reason, aud to question the grounds on
which properly authenticated requisision
is based is simply to question the faith
and honor of the demanding nation.
By all means let US have an amended
treaty in which the equities as we'll as
the proprieties are observed.
THE SOUTHERN WHO'S DISCARDED.
An esteemed correspondent, who has
ever been Wing, has furnished an ex-