New-York tribune., 1876-08-05

tO
tween the United States and f9reIgh cenu env.
tries, or which hereafter may exist; wlicn says
that when fugative demanded under ti,e treaty -
given up by the United states, he shall De sirCn %
dered by the order OF the Secretary OF STATE 70 t9
foreign Government "to be tried for tie ctnc % maca
-uct shall be accused Again In Seetl9n tho
Cylsea TesiSspt shall employ a needful power at
his command for the protection, OF , a person @
extradited to the United States " dnH The fFat con
ciuson of his trial for the crmes or ogenses spcheh IN
The rdrrani of crrddifion: Now certainly the IAN
ruape of these statutes does not imply tnat person
once surrendered may be subsequently, tired Tor an
ofense of which he not accused previous 10 MS
extraditon but on the other hand, II there is any
precise meaning in words, they certainly 90 imply
limitation of the purpose Of the surrender 10 ,ral
for rhe specific oiense for which accusation and de-
mand was made and eXtradition acceded to, and an
exclusion of every other pqrpG;sf CeTta n 'f o
Congress who drew up and passed tins act OF iofo
had an idea that fugitive delivered up under IL lor
specific oifense was at the Same time delivered up
for all otienseS TO justice generally, u is contrary
to common sense TO suppose that the language III
which they clothed their Ideas would not nave Deeh
Ain, since 1912, the United States has made
fonr oxtraGitOn treaties with other natlons-itaiy
Salvador, Nicaragua and BeiglumIn All OF Wnich
the principle cOntended for by Great Brtain naheiy
that extradted persons can be tried only on extra,
dItioa charges has been admitted and Incorporated
In clear and definite languace the provision IN the
treaty with EcuauOr tlo'-I ioI eA"i'Plo, i'""'"e 80
"The person or persons delivered up, charged with the
pIi
prosecuted ion any committed previously TO that
ior Which lis or their cXtraditiOn may be asked
Now is il to be supposed that the United states III
dealing with general subject as the adniinlStr
ton of Justice aud tho repression OF crime WoHiu
give to these countries guarantees against posSIoI9
infringement of their sovereignty or tnef ilEnt oi
osynn ard deny the same .avOrs to treat Brliaih!
Can it DO doubted that If at the time OF inc l,stta
ti0n of the Treaty OF 1872 Great 8ri'alh hau dah'u
for an additional clause to the effect that hereafter
she should be put on terms OF eQuaiity WIN ine
most favored nations in respect 10 eNtiadltoh PRIV
lcges, that such q clause WiihOut hestt-llo "p'' @
have been added The legitimate inference from
facts therefore would seem TO be tat the thfo
action of the Government of the United states since
1872, respect to tXtradltlol mas pech 70 sl5'i
The construction put upon the Treaty OF lSl2 by
Great Britain, and TO prove that me aci oi aI4ia-
mont of Great Britain, which Mr.. flsh regards 'tS -
fragrant violation OF the treaty, was In iAct B"iAG
more than simple declaration and definition OF
privileges and immunitos pretXls'lng nhdct iEe
treaty. and not in sense the introduction OF new
conditions into the bargain which did not exist a'
the time the bargain was made
TWO VIEWS OF THE SAME MATTER.
There is also q further point brought out by Lord
Derby III his dispatch OF june 80 to Col. Holman
which almost cOncluslvcly demonstrates That the
original Interpretation put upon the treaty by TIE
Washington Cabinet was III harmony with That
adopted by the British Government, and that some
powerful influence afterward came In TO occasion
change in opinion. Thus, between 1871 ana 1913,
the making of new and extended treaty OF extra
ments. and, as preliminary TO so doing DRAFT was
prepared In this draft was Incorporated the i"i-
HrTiCiy VI When any pcrson shall have been
rendered by either OF the high contracting parties to inc
other such person shall untl ne has been restored
or had an opportunity OF returning TO The country
whence he surrendered be trable or tried FOR an'
ocnse committed IN tho ether Gounry prior " r S'.,
render other than the particular oncise on account oi
which he was surrendered. 80 ,
Now according to Lord Derby while the two Gov
crnments were unable 10 come 20 full agreement
os 10 various new points brought up for incOrPgra-
ZION in the new treaty there was not only 10 oNJcc-
tion whatever made at any time by Mr. flSn 70 ndr
above sixth article but on the contrary MI fi~h
,ave tbe article more les direct apprOVa! ~
| proposing to amend it by adding the following
words: ..,,,.
of returning TO the country whence be was snTFa1Sd m
until two months "a least snail nave elapsed alt'F rs
sbaii have been sot at liberty ana free TO return.
! IL may not be an incolyenlent question Tor the
Secretary of State TO answer but II II very peru
ncnt question for the American puDht 70 ash "nb'
| If was that induced hlm 10 take one We" of ms
very important state matter IN 1873 and dan'iIi-
! cqIly onpuSiie view in 1881 Perhaps Mr. Edwards
PlcrrtpOnt will iud ii convenient to explain 10 "l
! Derby why, if the claim put forward ~ MI J i7i
! OF the right OF this Government t. Try an cNiTd'tcd
offender for an Ocnse for which ne was not surT'I-
dcyed is clear and unassallabc, he instructor iAe
New Ork DistTict-AttOfney Cn the -" "l Decr4-
! bcr 1879 that to do so involved consequences ol
] very scrouS nature" aud that he must proceed ih
strict conformity with International law and inter
/ nat !Onll courtesy" - =.
! uuon the circumstance that both countries nave
from time 10 time under the treaty trl"d cXiadtrd
| criminals for olcnscs other than those ior Whch
they were surrendered; ANA thus ilcrcnt.aliY 'Nc,
the position that usage ha' p''ome de'trI'i' Ne "i
! law But concrding the maximum oi weight ana
! authenticity that can be claimed Tor huch pre-
/ ce1rnts such weight ard autn"nUCltj are very nm
/ tied There has been no one instance pfiof 10 thc
Lawrence ease in which either country has tired an
| cXt,a1itcd fn.ative for OileBsc winch was not
among tne Oilcus,S enumerated under the treaty OF
for an Oeisc which was not Dy sta ME ana phpiic
/ opinion in both countries unanimously con, 10
l...." /. fYsr.f IN lF nsII a.
sDousjble Furthermore, there has btcn no piCNl0h'
/ instance in which either country mas Drrs 7iri
in trying an eNtradIied luEtNe i"i al "ichIc
other than that for winch ne was s''fe.!'i''
in known opposition 10 the WISHES ana III i lace nl
the protest OF the country that surIeh .crc" him H.
| therefore there has been technical dsit-dfu "l
the letter of the treaty, the spirit OF 10 haS n no
! sense been violates by any al the prcccu'h ms 90
| which Sir Fish has made rti'rchcc; anu 10 ih'i"''
them at all as constituting Jusihcaipn Tor ny 4E an
eytradited fugitive for an Onc.isc tJr Wn!cA ~ was
| rOt only not surreadeied under iho treaty, ana
| winch moreover, not an ota..Sc IN tDe sense oi
| niaQ IN sc, bat Only ma'd P'0hic"H' rs plo,eIH'
which in a country justice conrt would De r'HaIiyH
rs "a ycring OF small trckcry ana petUlOggin* ihe
same remark will also apply Win greater lofcs ana
pertinency 10 the citation by Mr. flsh III
| his dispatches Of the language oil ,bniISh u
| riSts i'm which the word "Ogcase" - made
annIicable by him to acts, which in tine Brit
| ish sense and in the British law were not
otlrnscs and which with the writers ANA speaiseIs
| rpfcrred to had an entirely different s'gllhcau0n.
| Tbns when Mr.. Hammond, formerly BntlSh Under
Secretary of State quoted by Mr. fish ~ SAYING
1--WE admit # man ls iona gde urea lot an oyeH"e
for which he was given up, thcEc is nothing 10 pre-
! vent his being subsequently tried for another
oGcase," &c., is it 10 be supposed Tor one moment
| that Mr. Hammond meant to incadc 9noef Tue
fern ot;epse such acts as the breaking OF blockade
| the rccantaiIon Of the MOhammedan religion winch
in Mohamnedan countries is punishable with dcathl
the distribution of Bibles IN spain, or the engaging
| in n smuggling enterprise And if Ee did not,
| then any opriOn which Mr Hammond may have ex-
pressed has no meaning considered IN reference 10
the case of Lawrence, ana its cl!aViOh serves ho
| th.r. DcIOn