The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-04-13
Winslow's Extradition.


Winslow's Extradition.
The Winslow Extradition case is like.
" to bring about q serious diversity Of
opinion between our Government and
the British Cabinet on the subject OF
the treaty for the extradition of GRIM
finals. While the British authorities
admit the claim OF our Government for
the extradition Of Winslow, the accused
person, as coming within the provisions
of the extradition treaty between the
United States and Great Britain, they |
nevertheless interpose the requirements
OF an act OF their Parliament, under
which they require the United States
Government to give guaranty that the
fugitive from justice shall not be tried
for any ofense other than the one speci- |
ned In the warrant of reclamation.
Inasmuch as Winslow's offenses were |
various and his forgeries numerous, and
as all these were offenses against the |
criminal law Of the State of Massachu- |
setts, and not of the United States, !
JUL wv 6luluCHb AAu6 AtS0h Nu-
able to specifically comply with
this requirement of the British au-
thorities. Accordingly, after much
consideration and correspondence on
this point, 1t 10 now understood that
Secretary FISH has Instructed our rep
resentatiye in London to inform the
British Governments that the United
States peremptoriiy refuses to 'concede1
the conditions upon which the British
authorities propose to surrender the fu-i
gitise, Winslow; and that the enforce.
ment of this condition will be regarded
by our Government as an abrogation by
Great Britain of the tenth article Of the
treaty of 1s42 governing this matter; and
that hereafter the United states will de-
cline to order the extradition cftngitives
from justice for acts committed in
British territory.
The effect Of this step will be to wholly
abrogate the treaty stipuiations now ex-
listing between the two countries, and
make each an asylum for the felons OF
the ether, until a new treaty can be
negotiated.
We do not think that this impeachment
TO Winslow's extradition is interposed
by the British Government in any spirit
of captiousness or of i'll will. England's
great caution on the subject OF the
sacredness of the law Of asylum is well
known, and is indeed historic. More
ha 1lrff nt nf IN anf nf
1870, under which this impediment
arises, is not materially different from
our own Act of Congress of 1s48 in this
regard; which provides (Sec. 81 that,
after due proofs of guilt, it shall be law
full for our Secretary OF State to order
the person accused to be delivered to the
proper officers Of the foreign govern
ment, and by them taken hence .sto be
tried for the crime Of solicb such person
shall be accused" And If not conveyed
out of the United States within two
months after such order, such person
may be discharged, unless sufficient
special cause be shown to justify delay.
What the British authorities require is,
the guaranty that WinsIow shall be tried
for s.the crime OF which he is accused, J"
and no other. 1t is this Tor which he is
TO be extradited, and no other. II is OBJ
yious that international treaties for ex-
tradition should conform to this most
Just requirement.; as otherwise the forms
pf extradition might become but o trap
In which to catch fugitiyes and try them
for ofenses not specified in the Treaty.
This would be clear violation Of the
law Of asylum. ~
The practical difficulty In Winslow's
case arises from our peculiar duplex ju-
risdiction of National and State laws.
Our national Government can exercise
n, control over the administration Of
the crfminallaw Of Massachusetts. and
consequently can not give the guaranty
required by the British act OF Parlia.
ment. But England can not recognize
the separate State OF Massachusetts,
nor deal with heras q sovereignty. The
National government Is the only one she,
can know In this BEHALF Out OF this di-
lemma we can see no way but by some
special treaty stipulation. Consequent.
u W apst pot permit ourselves. q fAl'