The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-05-10
The American Case.

The letter addressed by Secretary Fish 10
the Secretary of the American legation at
London, copy of which was sent to the
House Monday, is long and exhaustive re.
view of the points at dispute in regard to the
extradition of WiDslow, the Boston forger,
and defense of the position taken by our
government in the matter. 1t appears that
the reason given by Lord Derby in his note
to the Washington cabinet the refusal of
Great Britain to surrender Wnslow is the
course of this country in the Lawrence case.
In reply to this Secretary Fish calls Lord
Derby's attention to the fact that this gov
ernment asked the surrender of Lawrence
precisely as it has asked the surrender of all
other fugitives, who have been delivered by
Great Britain under the treaty of 1912, COM
plying on its part with the requirement of
the treaty, and neither by expression OF i'm
plication entering into any arrangement, but
simply requiring the fugitive to be delivered
to justice. He Furthermore asserts that the
position of Great Britain is totally opposed
to the views recorded in parliament papers,
asserted in diplomatic correspondence, and
recognized in judicial decisions. The his
tory of the several extradition treaties and
the practices under them is reviewed at great
length. 1t appears that in both Great Britain
and the United States the surrendered fugi-
tives have been tried for other offenses than
those for which they had been delivered, the
rule having been that where the criminal was
reclaimed in good faith, and the proceeding
was not an excuse or pretence TO bring him
within the jurisdiction of the court, it was no
violation OF the treaty or of good faith to pro-
ceed against him on other charges than the
rendered.
The Secretary ridicules the right of Great
Britain to demand as condition of her en-
gagement to surrender a fugitive criminal, a
stipulation not provided in the treaty but
asked on the ground of an act OF parliament
passed twenty-eight years after the treaty was
entered into. As this country recognizes no
power in British statute TO modify pre-.
viously existing treaty, Mr.. Fish has not felt
called upon to examine particularly the pro-
visions of that act; but he mentions that
Great Britain reserves to herself, while max
ing conditions on this country, the right to
try fugitives surrendered to her for other
crimes than those set down in the requisition
for extradition, or proven by the facts on
which the extradition is based. Since the
passage of the act of 1870, Great Britain has
obtained from this Government some thirteen
warrants of extraditon, and instituted
much larger number of proceedings to obtain
extradition. In no instance has Great
Britain thought it necessary to tender any
such stipulation as she now asks from the
United States. or to present requests for ex-
tradition in any way different from that in
which they were presented prior to 1870.
As regards the particular case Of Winslow,
Mr.. Fish is not aware of any intention of
trying him for any offences other than those
on which the indictments were transmitted,
and for which his surrender was demanded;
but the United States will give no stipulation
OF which the treaty does not authorize the
demand. He cannot recognize the right of
any other power TO change at its pleasure
az" "tuouo tuo dSsout vi tNe Onlteu StateS
the terms and conditions of an executory
agreement, in treaty solemnly ratified be-
tween the United States and that power.
He thinks that the twenty-seventh section of
the British act of 1870 was specially intended
to exempt the treaty with the United States
from the application of any of tie new Con-
ditons or provisions embodied in that act,
and to leave that treaty to be construed and
the surrender Of foreigners hereunder to be
made as had been previously done,