New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-05-09
TIE LETTER.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE. !
WAsUrNGToS ID g.. March 81. 1876.


SIR: lettering previous correspondence In reference
have now u acknowledge the receipt OF your No. 81
UnCer date OF March 10. inclosng note addressed 10
81 y Lord Derby OF March 9, ana your reply OF the
The given by Lord Derby for the course init
place in this Co0ntry In the Lawrence and the
tive terms OF Section 3, Sub-Secon2 OF the British Ex-
the home Oilce had further and expressed
the opinion that only had implied understand
Lawrence should be tried. but that il would I've in yio
. OF the raw of the United states, and of the
try prisoner for any other crime tina the parcu
lar exradiion Oense which he had been surrendered
With regard such understanding. either expressed
or Implied by any authorized declaration or engagement
be adduced. This Government asked the surrender Of
Itwcnc precisely IL has asked the surrender oi an
an unaer the treaty lSi2, complying lis part with
the requirements of the treaty. aud neither 10y expression
Bor by Impncation entering into any arrang cement"
BAT ainpv reGirng the fugitive to be delivered up
Justice 1t furnished such evidence OF cIlnlhahty as
according the laws of Great Britain where the fHsiyc
Waa found would justified hls apprehension and
commitment for trial If tie crime or oheise hdd Del,
thee committed Great Britain recognized the c1mpl
uc by tais Government win all tDat tie treaty r.,
qui. and delivered the fugitive mp to Justice
The ,luson made by the Home Office 10 the case OF
Lawrence needs possibly pas snS rcmnrh. C1iflcS u
Lawrence is charged villa srics of ioserles whereby
the Government of the United States claims 10 nave
defTanded to amount not far short OF S2OOoOoO
on CuatOni-Uuse entries lie supposed g nave nuheE
aud Influential conc1erates bOlh In tais country ana
in Ensaud who suspected OF having shared III the
spells resulting from those alleged frauds upon TINS
Government. large nunncr ot III ilcthehts nave ptr
ion nd against Lawrence AMI proceedings el1hef cF &"
criminal Their pending or Imminent against sn pnSru
accJnpccS supposed that this prosecution oI tGtSe
eases might possibly disclose names on either side OF the
Atlantic in connection with alleged frauds not yet
brought before the public.
H. Tine Spring u 1873 Lawrence nsl and escaped 10
Europe and WAS arrested undcf Tue assumed hdne Oh
Gordon al Nreeusto"'l on fcnirilioh Ir LIS
under the treaty There were proved ms am iuioh'l
before Sir Thomas Henry IN London twelve or thirteen
distinct CHARGES OF forgery, .-rh on PAPER cosiev'v,
with different invoice OF goods. The representatives, OF
this Government supposed the etnauiio on Vs.
report OF Sir Thomas Henry % the Bi.i'i
some officer led To iSsae al warrant Of
surrender " Lawrence on single Charge OF loIsihS
bond and AFFIDAVIT, on which warrant thh Keeper 90 IN
l delivered Lawrence 10 the agent appointed by az
not know To any agent officer OF this Government %
10 lie U,ited states counsel and friends appear 10
nave nppriscd Of the fact mat although PROOF was
the warrant OF surrender seems to ho confined 10 Inc
forgiG; ~ bond and affidavit " To tnis DATE Law
renee airalguCd only upon one Judgment ana
thar ON the forgery OF the bond ana ataN mentioned
in sir Thomas ierys report 10 ths ii"me oic,' i '
in nnt been gncd for any otcnsc OtIcr tiau th
cxtrldition crimes proved ny the facts IN evidence bcor
sir Thomas Henry, anu on wn'ch Ills surrender was
ARE WE BOUND BY TNGiI II L,wi
Although not arIsgued on oDy other Indictment than
70! the forgery for which he indicted the British
Hiac Onco has raised the question that ne may possibly
DO tried upon other charges AMI for other crimes IL
seems therefore. that the Home Oicc OF Great Britain
undertakes tn decide what is the law of the United states
as vo As Of Great Britain, aud assumes i"at tne IN" 81
the mite states 40 we'll Tire general law al cAad-
lion aud the IXtladi;on act OF Great Britain prevent
the ual % u criminal surrendered under tir cdty ul
Isl for Fny Onse other than the particular II nsr ior
which he WAS cxtiadod; and the position whcI u
takes Involves tie assumption Ma on dth"huhS me
tr1oitirn under thc treaty tue United S.iics b hnuud
by the provisions Of the Act o. 1870 whc;act In cou'
with tie treaty not ANA 1t CLAIMS 10 1--we 'uri o''!
thal IN effective airangcn III WIS % tocr tLhl no nc
csod so surrendered should Toe ci for am ON IMAM
Tie particular >ra ition oicnse on The "a ia 81 winch
Arrangement IL is ella med tat tie s'iecriH nave here
tolole b. made. AMI wtGodt whr u 10 now sd ih1l
q Surrender wuva NOT b. po-sihl" dlici ii' Ens s act
but, already SAID n"ih is is JrtH iui'eu ~ ''i
OF belief of tc exist ncc "a such supPJs @!I5-
ri csc petitions are so different from tie nm erstand
IN o, III Cove ment and 80 Opfoed 10 the we've
which II was supposed were eh.efi9mtu by nit''
Ii1s,n and which been rccOricd1n parliamentary
papers. winch have been Asserted ID diplomatic cor,
spindenCe, ard been rccosnzc4 IN judicial htci-ioh, -
tl as in this country ana 80 norm by wittS %" eA'ta
dition law. tnnt eain from Lord Derry not yl. su
ic equal 30 ny r-re! That Ecy "pic!i lob' surp",t'
by the frcisa once lac act 90 AHt T. ~ ~ ~
dc H. tnr heysd Statutes sections 10 - ',2'j ic
zen NJ 20 ~ .1ndecc docs nJt al g of ini
the rights OF the two Governments on me Question:
LORD DERBY ANSWERED. BY PRECEDENT.
II tho surrendered fugitive b to find immunity from
fra, for other than that named In tie warrant 81
extra!iiion he must and suci immunity guaranteed 10
him bv TIE terms Of he trea not In TIE act OF COnscos
The treaties which contain Immunity from trial FOR 0the
oeases ye been celebrated since the date OF Tie act OF
.f3 AT that date the Uuted States had treaties OF ex
tradition only with Great Britain and with France
urtucr OF which contained al" I1lIi'l"h itIorlc" u"
treaties alone uchuo OF can
.lr me ighs % the cOut tlhX pari s. IN" c""trhc
q; az he treaty between ne United state aud Great
~ az 10y re ~ Cove yar. lS %"rs e . Ratmony Ia
c3rL county surrendered uaivcs have been tl'd oi
ir rue having beyH mat where the criminal was 10
81 i,rd In goo faith aud Tie proceeding Was not an OK
IN, .oii N WAC n1 violation OF The trcitJ or 81 Gond
f. IN 20 proceed against hih on other chaibc' IMAM '"'
III judicial DECISIONS of botn c,na,r's aIfn 'nIs inir
]; was 70 held ~ case OF Interstate cAifHHton "t
a. Ia
and lie same prIuc pie laid down by tIe Court o
Appealg OI ScSYork la Late case OF iirc g ~
10 VINO had been delivered zap IN ter the tetil "it'
FRANCE In the United States aSt Cdli"cl e DIatch-
fo.d Ger c.. Zip 13) Caldwell after eA 'iui,ion don
Cau,dp for iOigcy 1911, was indicted Oi biIDlhS an
oiic - ana ihr plea entered ild Tie prisoner was
biOUgnt within tne jurisdiction OF the couat upon
char gs forgery uHdCr the treaty, anu INA,
tie oiIeuso 81. cd.d in the indictment was not
IncDtJled IL tho treaty. demurrer Deih6 hte'
del "a good iaiih, Charged with the commission OF "
IGIted from Canada charge OF rODoar Tue pro
vas tiei ior assault VITA intcnt 10 XII III tt cas-
,oc Iy and tird IN Great Britain for a.ce tie iaci
~ Dy the aOcitorticheal o. Great Britain VINO
had Charge OF The proceedings, and who examined
before ire l9.e B1iiR Commission tae exigaditlJn
1aestion that the prisoner, Dens cxtmditci 10.
forgery. was acquitted AM was theFeupoA tIIed AM con
yctod for arccly-..n Oiensc for winch ne could not
haze len surrendered. not being enumerated la the lis
OF lines mentioned in the treaty.
In Canada there is the current OF authority. In
tie case OF VOI EIrmOD, Upper Canada Reports. ! g.
d. 81 the prisoner was surrendered by tne oled Siae5
10 nada ul,Cu Tie charge OF forgery, ANA application
1 MADE for Lis release on bal on the ground that the
oaeuse was most the obtaining VI money under ItIsc
rt Mes aud not within the treaty. Mdcaulcf, g. D..
la iu DENYING tae notion that hc was disposed 10
ga Ohcnsc forgery, but even thc ohcnse were
nly false pretepses after being In custody he Is aDc 10
ba for any Oiensc when the fact may support
In PaxtOn's case, 10 Lower .ahada JhIist zi- IL;
40 tne prisoner was charged with utrrinS II forged
t0mis-ory note lie pleaded that he had been exlri-
died mon the charge OF forgery, and c0ud ot Dt ucH
for tutoring gcd paper or for any 9thef tIa tho ga
tradition oneuse. Ihe Court decided that thc ttili
should proceed. Tue prisoner thereulon pio' 1880
aealst being called upon 10 plead 10 any DINER caHs
t3nn tiat for which ho eXradited but ne was iIeu
found guilty and the conviction affirmed on appeal
In addifl1n 10 tic foregoing ia go Benodlct III hs