, 1876-05-22


fusal OF their Government to surrender
W1NsLow without a pledge TINT ho should
bo triod for no othor o1enss than TINT for
which lo was demanded, was unwnrrantod
by INV and an unusual and unfair proceed
,1re under international practices, 1t is also
freely admitted that tho abrogauon OF the
treaty, growing out OF tho position the Brit
ish Government las assumed, will be unfor-
tunato for both countries. This ia the t0hor
OF articles in able Journals liko the Econo-
mist aud Spectator ; and, though they coll
domn tho American notice Of ending tho e1-
tradition treaty as the usual rashnesa OF q
democratic Government, they can scarcely
deny Tint in this case, it would have been
better 1t the conservative monarohicnl Gov
ernn,ent had paused for second sober
thought before jumping at conclusion which
it cannot Justify undor the Inv.
The English caso rests upon o law Of par-
lamont, pissed in 1870, which contains tho
following provisions:
~ A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered
II tho otEcnyc, in respect Of which bis surrender Ia
demanded is ono Of political character, or II hc
prove 10 the satisfaction Of the Police Magistrate
In the court before whom he Ii brought on habcas
corpus, or to tic Secretary Of State, that the
requ[s!tion OF hs surrender hae, In fact been madc
with Wow to try OF punish him for m ofrense Of
political character.
to foreign Stato unless proyislon ia made by the
law OF that State. or by arrangement, that tho
fugitive criminal hhal not, untll ho has been
restored Or Ind opportunity Of returning to ffor
Ma5caty's dominions, be detained tried in TINT
foreign Bsato for any otrcnso committed prior 10
his surrender othor than tho oxtradttlon cslme
proved by tho facts on which tho surrender Is
grounded.
It requires no very close nor learned intim-
aey with international law to understand
that municipal law of England cannot, Of
itself, govern and direct tho relations Of TINT
nation with othor Governmonts- When tha
Parliamentary law at 1870 wns cited in tho
LAwnENoz cass by his London solicitors, the
| English State Department assumaA TINT the
United statas Government was / .,snd by Il
law Of its own, pissed in 1873, md embody-
ing practically the same theory OF o1trhdition.
But the error in this caso aroso from III
Ignorance Of tho fact TINT tho United States
Inv expresaly o1copts England, because we
wero bound by tho AsunuaToa treaty Of
1842 to delivcr up criminals on certain
charges without stipulating any conditions
Thus the United States Government took
special pains to avoid an abrogation Of the
English treaty and rupture with Great
Britain on this question. Not so with the
English Government, however, which has
undertaken without further notice to amend
tho AannunroA treaty by ono OF its local
lawa 1t might reasonably hayo expected
resistance in such a case, and such resistance
is scarcely open to tho charge OF democratic
5ru*Querh Tho only Inv question involved
ropo1ad tho existing treaues whorayer
thero was difference On my points
concerning c1tralition. sotAng aside tho
question Of power to do this, 1t was mani
foatly not the purpose Of tho English law of
| 1870 to mako such repeal, for It orcepts
"anything contained in this net which is in.
consistent with tho troatfe8 referred to in tho
acts repealed" Of which the treaty with tho
United Ssatcs Is ono. There Is, therefore, no
warrant in tho Englsh local statute for max.
Ing tho demnnd on tho United 6tntea which
has boon SO properly resented.
In its examination Of tho subject the Lon.
don Economist presents very fair statement
Of the American case when it points out TINT
the English Government desires tho Prcsi.
don't Of the United States to exercise the leg.
islatiye function by tho practical abrogation
Of troaty that required the sanction of both
tho President and tho Sonata Of tho Unitnd
States. It finds no good answer to this
Atatement But it also questions the desirn.
bility Of enforcing tho proposed condition.
even in proper md lawfal way. It recalls
the fact that during the thirty years' life ol
tho treaty thers has never been an at.
tempt to try for political oGonse
any ono brought back to tho United
States on friaad Jacie case OF criut
included in the terms Of the treaty. and Il
docs not think 1t worth while for an imagi
nary case to run tho risk Of making the two
countries each tho refuge for the othcrt
criminal classea. This Is certainly ve13
sonsibaa' viow of tho matter, and It Il
strengthened by tho reflection That diapo
aition to end or modify tho treaty migh
hayo boon properly Expressed In notice Il
our Government which would have rcceivct
respectful consideration. II 1t YVES tho pur
poso Of tho English Government to put 81
end to oil extradltion between tho two coun
tries, 1t has probably succeeded, though in
very undigniflod and unbocoming manner
The ond certainly does not justify tho means
nor tho meana tho end. Wo believe that th'
sentiment Of this country Is 30 enlightened
that 1t will deliver up Engliah crim,nals 1t
any evont whom rr1ma Jaca case Is mad