The Portland daily press., 1876-06-21
THE EXTRACTION QUESTION.
Message from President Grant.

WASHINGTON, June 20.-The President this
afternoon sent the following message to the
Senate and House of Representatives:
By the tenth article of the treaty between
the United States and Great Britain, signed in
Washington Cd the 9th day of August, 1912, it
was agreed that the two governments should,
upon mutual acquisitions respectively made,
deliver up TO Justice all persons who being
charged with certain crimes therein enumer-
ated, committed within the jurisdiction of
either, should they seek an asylum or be found
within the territories of the other. The only
condition or limitation contained in the treaty
to the reciprocal obligation thus to deliver up
the fugitive was that it should be done only on
such evidence of criminality, as according to
the laws of the placed where the fugitive or
person so charged should be found would justi-
fy his apprehension and commitment for trial
if the crime or offence had there been COM
mitted.
In the month Of February last a requsitiou
was duly made, in pursuance of the provisions
of the treaty, by this government upon Great
Britain for the surrender of one Ezra d. WINS
low, charged with extensive forgeries and the
utterance of forged paper, committed within
the jurisdiction of the United States, who had
sought an asylum and was found within the
territory of Her Britannia Majesty and was
apprehended in London. The evidence of the
crimlnality of the fugitive was duly furnished
and heard, and being found sufficient to justify
his apprehension and commitment for trial if
the crimes had been committed in Great
Britain, he was held and committed for extra
dition. Her Maiesty's Government, however,
did not deliver up the fugitive in accordance
with the terms OF the treaty, notwithstanding
every requirement. thereof had been met on the
part of the United States, but instead of sur
rendering the fugitive, demanded certain
assurances or stipulations not mentioned in the
treaty, but foreign to its provisions as condi-
ton OF the performance by Great Britain of
her obligations under the treaty. Ia a recent
~ I'M mir ~ IN Of go
tives, and in answer to a call from that body
for information on this case, l submitted the
correspondence which has passed between the
two governments with reference thereto. 1t
will be found in executive documents No. 173
in the House of Representatives of the present
session, and l respectfully refer thereto for
more detailed Information bearing on the
question.
1t appears from the correspondence that the
British government bases its refusal to surren-
der the fugitive, and its demands for stipula-
tons or assurances from this government, on
the requirement of purely domestic enact
ment of the British Parliament, passed in the
year 1870 This act was brought to the notice
OF this government shortly after its enact
ment, and Her Majesty's Government was
advised that the United States understood it as
giving continued effect to the existing arrange
ment under the treaty of 1912 for the extradi-
ton of criminals, and with this knowledge on
its part and without dissent from the declared
views OF tie United States as to the unchanged
nature of the reciprocal rights and obligations
of the two powers under the treaty. Great
Britain has continued to make acquisitions and
to grant surrenders in numerous instances
without suggestion that it was contemplated
to depart from the practice under the treaty
which has obtained for more than thirty years.
until now for the first time in this case of
Winslow it is assumed that under this act of
Parliament Her Majesty may require stipula-
ton or agreement not provided IN the treaty as
condition to the observance by her govern
ment of its treaty obligations toward this
country. This have felt it my duty to repel.
In addition to the case of Winslow, requisi-
tion was also made by this government on that
of Great Britain for the surrender of Chas j.
Brent, also charged with forgery committed in
the United States and found in Great Britain
The evidence of criminality was duly heard
and the fugitive committed for extradition. A
similar stipulation to that demanded in Wins
lows case was also asked in Brent's, and was
likewise refused. 1t is with extreme regret
that am now called upon to answer to you
that Her Majesty'S Government has finally
released both of those fugitives, WinSloW and
Brent, and set them at liberty, thus emitting
to comply with the provisions and requirements
of the treaty under which the extradition of
fugitive crim inals is made between the two
governments The position thus taken by the
British government, adhered to, cannot but be
regarded as the abrogation and annullment of
the article of the treaty en- extradtion.
Under these circumstances it will not in nv
Judgment comport with the dignity or self
respect of this government to make demands
upon that government for the surrender of
fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requis-
ton of that character from that government
under the treaty. 1t will be cause of deep
regret if treaty which has been thus bene-
fetal in its practical operation, which has
worked so well and so efficiently, and which,
Notwithstanding the exciting aud at times
IF hot |,
countries have been the scene during its exist
ence, has given rise to no complaint on the
part OF either government against either its
spirit or its provisions, should be abruptly
terminated.
1t has tended to the protection of society and
to the general interests of both countries. Its
violation or annullment wouldlbe a retrograde
step in international intercourse. I have been
anxious and have made the effort to enlarge its
scope and to make a new treaty which would
be still more efficient agent for punishment and
prevention of crime. At the same time have
felt it my duty to decline to entertain propo.
sition made by Great Britain pending its re-
fusal to execute the existing treaty, to amend
it by practically conceding by treaty the denti-
cal conditions which that government demands
under its act of Parliament In addition to
the imposslbility of the United States entering
upon negotiations under the menace of an in
tended violation or a refusal to execute the
terms of an existing treaty l deemed it mad
floduio W IredI Ouly Ol Uu6 one aUlenQnenU pro-
posed by Great Britain while the United States
desires an enlargement of the list of crimes for
which extradition may be asked, and for i'm
provements which experience has shown might
be embodied in new treaty.
1t is for the wisdom of Congress to determine
whether the article of the treaty relating to ex-
tradition is to be any longer regarded as obi
gatory on the government of the United States
or as forming part of the supreme law of the
land. Should the attitude of the British gov
eminent remain unchanged l shall not without
an expression Of the wish Of Congress that 1
should do SO, take any action in either making
or granting requisition for the surrender of fu-
gitive criminals under the treaty of 1872
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) U. S. GRANT.