The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-09
DETAILS OF THE LAWRENCE CASE.
Can The Terms Of Solemn Treaty Be Changed BY
Legislative EacHflt7
A NEW CLAIM BY GREAT BRITAIN
Winslow's Surrender Demanded
Without Conditions.

Winslow cxtradion case, winch our Charge dAuaires
at London directed to present to the attention OF
Lord Derby Tho reply OF the British Minister has
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WAsnISGTox. March 81, 1876.
wIcKuAN HOFFMAN, Esq, &c, &c. &c
Sn-Rcferring TO previous correspondence In refer
enco to the extradton OF wnslow in custody IN Lon
don, have now acknowledge the receipt OF yours,
No 80 under date OF March 10, enclosing a note ad
dressed to you by Lord Derby of March aud your re
was enclosed note from Lord Derby dated February
~, IN winch II was stated that Her MJesys Sccre.
drawn attention to subsection Of the third
section of the British Extradition act OF 1870,
and feared that the claim by tins government OF the
right 10 try Lawrence (wbo had been recently sur
rcndered Tor crimes other than that for which he had
been extradted amounts 10 denial that any such law
m IS referred to IN the British act exists and the dis
caimer Of this government VI the existence oil any I'M
Piled understanding in respect To trial Tor crimes other
than cxtradon crimes together with the intcrprcta
put upon the OF Congress OF August H. 1872
(which is doubtless error Tor lslsl preclude any
longer the belief in the existence an elective
raugcment which Her Majestys government had pre-
viousIy supposed 10 be practically In force and II WAS
added that the Secretary OF the Home Department was
compelled that II he correct consider
ing that such Law exists, he would have no power
Ia the absence OF AN arrangement to order the extra
dition OF Winslow, even although proper proceedings
had been taken Tor that purpose.
Lord Derby called General Schencks attention to the
intimaton which he had received from tho Home De-
partmenI and requested that tho be brought
the knowledge of this government. IL is to be e.
marked, however, that this Foreign ONCE,
disting ushed from the Home Office, expressed no
opinion the question involved but confined itself to
requesting that the views OF the Home Office might be
communicated to this government lew days later,
however on tho Sh of March, Lord Derby assumes the
advanced position previously occupied only by
the Home Department and writes as iollows:--
Her Majestys government themselves justified
In authorizing the surrender OF Winsow until they shall
ssa moi s"u an h h ss re- or ha a
tunity Of returning 10 Her Mestys ominon be detained
10 his surrender other than the extradon crimes proved
by the facts which the surrender would be rounded
and requesting that this decision be communicated to
this government
10 this you made reply under date of March 8,
referring the general practice many years
the treaty, and calling attention 10 the
to the twenty section OF the OF 1870
Ia the case of BONNER No further CORES pondencc
has reached this government and the matter rests
upon this note OF Lord Derby and your reply.
THE REASONS GIVEN
by Lord Derby for the course intimacd In his note
arise he states from what had taken place in this
country IN the Lawrence and the positive Of
section 3 subsection Of the British Extradtion
OF 1870 Moreover 1t has been stated that the Homo
Oce had gone further and expressed the opinion
reached to the particular for which Lawrence
should be tried anu that IL would be in violation OF the
laws OF the United States and Of the general laws
Of extradition Of all countries, to try any prs
oncr Tor any other crime than tho particular
dton offence for which he had been surrendered
With regard to any such Understanding. either ex-
pressed implied by any authorized dr,liration or
Engagement OF this government evidence ad-
duced nor can be adduced This government asked
the surrender OF Lawrence precisely has asked The
surrender OF all other fLgitives who have been de
cred by Great Britain under the treaty Of 1872
plying on its part with tho requirements OF the treaty
aud neither by expression by implication catering
into any arrangement" nut simply requiring The
fugitive 10 be devcyed up TO justice" II furnished
such evidence Of crimInaliiy according the laws
OF Great Rritan where the fugitive found would
have justified his apprehension and commitment for
trial the crime or offence had been there committed
Great Britain recognized the compliance by this gov
eminent with all thar the treaty required, and dev
cred the fugitive up to justice. The auson made by
the Home Oce To the case OF Lawrence needs possibly
passing remark
THE LAWRENCE CASE.
Charles L. Lawrence charged with series OF forger-
les whereby the government OF the United States
claims to have been defrauded TO an amount not lar
short Of 81 100000 ON Custom House entries He is
supposed To have numerous and influential confcd-
crates, both in this country and In England who
suspected ~ having shared IN the spoils resulting from
these alleged frauds npon this government large
number of indictments have been found against Law
renee, and proceedings either civil criminal
either pending imminent against supposed accom-.
pieces IL is supposed that prosecution of these
might possibly disclose names either side Of the
Atlantic In connection with the alleged frauds yet
brought before the public. In the spring OF 1879
Lawrence fed and escaped to Europe and arrested
under tho assumed of Gordon, at Queens
town, on requsi,ion for hts surrender under the
treaty There we're proved tas am informed) before
Sir Thomas Henry, ia London twelve or thirteen dis
blnct charges OF forgery each papers connected
with different invoice OF goods. The representatives
government supposed the exiraditon was made
all the charges, hut the letter report OF Sir
Thomas Henry TO the British Home Office led the
issue OF warrant 90 surrender OF Lawrence
gle charge oi forging bond and affidavit, which
warrant the Keeper OF the jail delivered Lawrence to
the agent appointed by the President TO him.
The terms OF the NOT known any agent
oiccr oil tins government represented mel
until hong after Iwrenccs return to the United states
Hts counsel appear have been apprcd Of
the fact that, although proof was presented
twelve thirteen charges OF forgery, the OF
surrender seems TO BE- confined to the forging a
bond aud affidavit Up To this date Lawrence has been
arragned only upon one indictment based on the
forgery Of the bond and affidavit mentioned IN Sir
Thomas Hcnry's report to the Home Once. he has
Tradition proved by the facts in evidence before
SIR Thomas Henry and on which his surrender Was
based.
Although not arraigned on any other Indictment than
Tor the forgery for which he was cxtrad,ted, the
British Home Office has raised the question that he
may possibly be tried upon other charges and for other
crimes. II seems, therefore. that the Home Office of
Great Britain undertakes TO decide what Is the law OF
The United statcs well OF Great Britain, and
that the law OF the United states well the
general law OF extradtion and the Extradton act OF
Great Britain, prevent the trial OF criminal sur
rendered under the treaty OF 1872 for offence other
than the particular offence for which he extraditcd
aud the position which u takes involves the assump-
ton that, IN demanding cxtra,ition under the
treaty the United states Is bound by the provisions OF
llc OF 1870 whether conflict with the treaty
not Claims have supposed that an seIccs-
i've arrangement In force that criminal so
should tried Tor any other than the par
ticuIar cxtradition offence, the faith OF which
rangcnent claimed that surrendcrs have heretofore
been made and without which II Is sald that
render would not he possible under the English act !;
but, as already SAID nothing adduccd support OF
the belief OF the existence OF such supposed arrange.
ment These positions are so different IRON
the understanding OF this government and w
opposed TO the views which II supposed
were entertained by Great Britain. and which have
been recorded IN Parliamentary papers which have
been asserted In diplomatic correspondence aud been
recognized In judicial decisions IN that In this
Try and for h by writers cNtradton law. that
learn from Lord Derby roc with surprise. equal
my regret that they appear TO be supported by the
Forcisn ONCE
rmK ACT August IL 1s4s
reproduced in the Revised statutes tSection 80
5270) referred IN the correspondence Affect
lisoit he al on
ton This SIMPLY general act Tor carrying into
effect treaties OF exlradition 1t provides the machn
cry and prcscrbcs the general mode Of procedure bat
does not assume determine the rights OF the United
States Of any other state. which governed
wholly by the particular provisions Of the several
treaties nor to lint. consruc any particular treaty
In some few treaties between the United States aud
foscgD countrts provisions exist that the criminal
shall NOS offences commit ed prior to
dson other than extraditon crime, and in others
NO such provision rs included
Again. under some treaties the ctizens or subjects OF