New-York tribune., 1876-08-05

Sy;y tete for anv oflepse committed prior to his
slrrender other than the extraditon crime pr1aJsnn
H. the facts on which the surrender IS grOunued::
SIcb then was the commencement OF the eHtIau-
tion difficulty. Ii originated exclusively ~ 9 tn9
treatment of The case OF Lawrence ny tnS Hin in
States and not III the case OF W insiow inc ao'oH "
which case was simply consequential.
ANALYSIS OF TIE INTERNATIONAL DISAGREEMENT
To the answer of Lord Derby las above given) to
the American demand for the extradllon Oh
Winslow. Mr.. Fish replied that there was nothing
in the original treaty which precluded the Ohiteu
States from trying criminal once surrendered 1or
any oense other than the particular oenfe 1Vi
which he was exradtea :; but that Oh the contrary
the right 60 do so under the treaty was tniiy Sns
tanned by judicial decisions, by the PTacSiao ~ %
bofh Governments, and by the understanding "a "a
Dersors most familiar with proceedings IN snch
cases and finally, that Great Britain, by inc act p
1870, had changed inc SPlli ,nnt an tbe assent of
the limited States had attached 20 IL he" ~
The right 70 thus modify the treaty. ne aISj, tnT
President cannot recognize; and III ms ~; ~
Of MAY % 1876 (Ex. Doc 173, p so hr. tlsn @ G'sS
rot hesitate Though in someM nat lnuteC, WY! " W
characterize the con lnct OF Great Di'oli a.
disoourte0uS, and even as ln''i'hns
insult to bis lOur) GOyernlnent; -., -. S,-
Ihe points of disagreement between the Two uGs-
.,,,nents being thus clear, It IL next IN ORDER 10 IN
onire how the respective POSITIONS VIII stahu tho
fest of ANALYSIS. And i'll lnstltutlng sucn an ;'aY
sis it may be first remarked that III JudSug oi @ Iuo
,0ht of contracting parties uucr any treaty or con-
tract IN must be admitted thai The letter governs pr-
nariiy: but ii the letter prove ambiguous OF lccr,
then the SDi,it lar as III can Do dSCClltIltu
from precedents or attending circumstances. NoW
The letter OF the treaty in question That 1Or eer5h
specifically enumerated ohenseS eNtialtioh sil ."
granted which phrasCoiogy, accoldlil2 70 cNciy - -
EonaI nrjrciulc OF Interpretation, certainly ipiles
That for noi-cnumerated oitcnSes there sli DC 10
extradition otherwise the phISeoloEy " i to sa 10y
AGain tb. treaty preSCTibes the methodS ny Nnich
it's provisions are 10 be made operative lhyTS !" 10
he demand and the submission OF evidence. ifls III
turn implies, what has been ackiowledSc 1l.,t tne
cauntry asked TO surrender fugitive Shiii nave Il
right before s9frcnGea 10 p "pb bargcd The causes
which led 10 it, and the soclal or p2ticaI codtios
under which It wi1 foiGhltEu: ' fsi 81 . ~ sr
render slave guilty Of killing ils master Ia otueF
IN secure his freedom, demanded on tue char3o OF
rnurdcr on the ground that Dy the common Ia" vi
tbe law of Fugland the act was not murder ana
The United States has in tutn refused TO surrender
an Irish tenant charged WIN klinng an enir,tn5
conditions OF surrender such essential ecinehts
of the treaty chat e%tradltlOn IN tne HtsI
instance would oS s.ISanne PoSoleio and if this be
So can there possibly be any such construction on
of the treaty as whole, when would WaiItit '.ls
ey pGrie assumption of the warner OF ahhuiielt oI
these conditions. Nay, more, IS II not III thc na!uIS
of a self-evdent proposition, that Tor the Chited
States to demand Gl GIsaI pira'r r,"aycd HIM frT
him for some ether ofense not Speclhed Ill the ue-
mand-one for whicl1hc was not surIendefGd one
i'm resnect TO which the country cXtiadtng had not
AN onnortupity to pass upOn-iS plain and GnlniS-
takable violation of the treaty. C0rpoFaIy the
criminal Ia within the JURISDICTION OF Jhc Chittu
States the moment he steps upon oul shoIss ou ~
the sense of the treaty., in legal sense ana y Wom
seem in all common sense, he - wlthln our JHISlc
diction for the purpose only Tor WMch ne Vas Sle-
ciallv demanded and eXtTadited IhlS Is thoNleW
OF the French, who nave uuquoStion%bIy gwen more
attention to This subject than any other nation Tor
as far back as ISL the French Department OF JUS
flee issued a circular forbddiug the trial III France
of any extTaded offender ior any oItese oIiiti ta1
fIe one for which he surrendered ana
directing that Whenever in any case eH!aohce
OF new oiiense should come to light IN
the cou-se OF the, proceedings, new dehi&nqd, q
with the usual foImaitlcS sh"nid De li'hc
Oh the country from which the criminal PAD Deih
originally eXtTadted for renewed surrender on t;ie
aIsn tI,e correct view would 10 follow wncn II
is considered that the adoption OF any "thct EIcW
wvuld be- in effect the denial oi the l1SEt oi Great
Rritain nr of the United States to c0nStli ME thlr
tfrrltory an asylum TO refugees charged WIth the
commission Of political or religious nie'ses III otht'
countries And If person eXiTadltcd Tor one o.
tense may be tried fOI amy oitcnse may ne not Dc so
tried by a druul-hCad court tDiaId dal aSWcH as Dy Il
court OF civil er criminal Jnr,Saia mon ,i,,
Let us apply u popular tOuchslunC to tins question
Suppose Great Britain 70 have treq Que oi h"i t.Sh
srbiects-J0hn Mitchell for cXauPe-ior tciiiiii'slh
after his surrender to her Dy tAc CH'co S,,t.ce
ON the charge Of robbery or SPAN, iutcr
obtaining possession Of one Of her own citizens
from the rnitcd States under !lkg cucnhStdneeii nee
had tried him for circulating The Protestant BiDIe
until recently criminal Oiicnsc III Sp3lhh WOl'd
not the country with one voice have demanded 9l
Great Britain or OF spain moi only iiaj tiit tilas
in question be stopped bat that apo!pg{-Iistaht m
and ample-be offered, win war as tic ALTERNATIVE I
h4SIt
tion or political party thai even proposed 10 hcED-
flare OH the subject bc swCpt ont Ui P2c' ana power
as with a whirwind! IN short, tA@f" Us Eti: III
volved and at stake principle oil He'.',i-4;ee-
dom for political thought and acuc;p lrtcioni
for the slave, freedom for rclglOdS D'ilSi' ana
finally freedom from ycNatious conineicial l"S'Ilc-
tions, which OF all nations, 1t Is least becoming
To the United States to any way weaken OF III
validate Lord DCiby III one ol nlS dispatches idi i,o
this very point, e., that tine position taken bS -dI
Fish iupaira the privilege of political aSS IhIh, ana
pits the direct question of how ne proposes 10 lhcet
H. And how docs Mr.. Fish meet 1t lie says There
is 40 danger far as the United states Is con
cerned to be apprthcndcd under tins head, because
Of I'VE ouOte ms exact languace) the inherent III
horn love of freedom, both of thought and acJloh,
engraved on the hearts Of the people "i thS ConuJ
so deeply that law can reach, AID no aimihstIa-
tiOn would dare TO Vioiac.' All OF winch on lts race
seems very iine bat becomes SIMPLY SUN anu non
sense III view Of the fact that what MI lsh says
the sentiment Of the American people would never
allow 10 be doGc actually was done, Whcn uid'i MS
own auspices Lawrence was arTaiGled IN New YORK
for an oiieI!se for which he was never eNiGultcu
for an oicnse which is not included nndtr the treaty
which is not an ohcuse Ieeoehlzel ~ ln'tlna,dCal I
law and which holds the same relation To popular
sentiment in Great Britain that the act Oi remain
ism" or the circulation of Protestant Bibles III
Catholic countries, sustalns TO the popular sentiment
OF the people Of the United states
T1tE COMMON SENSE VIEW OF THE CASE.
Viewed under these circumstances, how then does
the case stand. Great Britain has virtually said, in
all courtesy 70 the United States: "We have sur
rendered Lawrence but there has been some misnn-
dcrstaudng in The matter and ii We had understood
things as we do pow we should not have allowed
Won TO have taken him from our territory Tor the
purpose of Imprisonment and trial for snugglrg.
Recognize this MISUNDERSTANDING anu giht 70 i-aM
renee the privileges and exemptions which we nave
unwittngly helped tO deprive him OF and ABOVE All,
in the maine of civilization and of humanity, be care
ful how you, republic, ask US 10 estaooH PieSe- reg
icaI liberty by the nations of Europe with whom we