The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-03
obituary-Ths Exsrsdition Treaty with
England.

The tenth article of the Ashburton Treaty
comes to violent death to-day, aged twenty
three years, five months and twenty-four
days A great deal could be said in praise
of this defunct compact II we had space to
trace its history, but the coroners inquest
must take precedence of o formal eulogy. 1t
appears from London cable despatch dated
yesterday that the Foreign Office has given
notice to the American embassy that Wins
on the extraordinary pretext offered in its
justification will be such a plain violation
of the treaty by one of the contracting par
ties as releases the other from its obligation
1t is understood that the President will at
an early day send message on the subject
has passed between the two governments.
1t is not difficult to forecast the action of
Congress in SO plain case. The present is
not. indeed, one OF. those grave occasions
when the violation of treaty rises to tho
importance OF a casus beIH, for it is neither
afront to our dignity as would call for strong
measures. On the other hand. it does not
belong to that category in which the in
fingement of o treaty by one Of the parties
permits the other to regard the treaty as still
in force and to limit its action to diplomatic
remonstrance. The treaty is dead and the
only proper course for our government is to
declare it's release from the obligation of the
compact in consequence of its violation by
the other contracting Power. 1t is true, in
deed, that this compact might have been
terminated by the simple process of giving
notice; but this might have been done at
any time within the last twenty-three years
by either government without any assign
ment of reasons, this mode Of termination
being provided for in the treaty itself. But
in this case our government is of the opin-
ion that the treaty has been violated,
and its sense of dignity and just resent
ment requires it to proceed as it would in
any other breach of IN international engage
ment not grave enough to justify strong
measures, nor yet trivial enough to be recon-
cilable with the continuance of the treaty.
1t does not belong to the Executive, but to
Congress, to declare the abrogation of
treaty, and there can be little doubt that in
the present case Congress will declare that
the Extradition Treaty is no longer binding
on the United States because it has been
violated by the British government.
This inculpatory declaration will not tend
to strengthen good feeling and cultivate SEN
timents of amity between the two countries
but no other course is consistent with our
national self-respect. We cannot permit any
foreign Power to play fast and loose with its
treaty obligations at our expense Our gov
eminent sacredly keeps faith, and is en-
titled to expect the same scrupulous COM
spliance with engagements on the part of
other nations To be sure, it will be no
light matter for Congress to proclaim that
the British government has broken faith, but
it has no alternative consistent with national
honor If Secretary Fish has managed his
side of the correspondence with skill the
judgment of mankind may be safely invoked
on this remarkable evasion of treaty obliga-
tons, and Congress will not hesitate to do
its duty.
The treaty of 1912 has been in force for
nearly quarter of century. During this
long period there have been frequent de-
mands for the surrender of criminals on
both Sides and, until now, there has never
arisen a question nor breath of difference
as to the meaning of the treaty on the point
which has been SO suddenly started by the
British government. There have been re-
peated instances wherein Great Britain her
self has demanded the extradition of crimi-
nails on one charge and has tried them
on another. The sudden and extra
ordinary doctrine which she now sets
up is an accusation against herself
that she acted in bad faith in the
instances here alluded to, for she has re-
peatedly done herself what she now contends
that the United States have no right to do
under the treaty. Her pretence that the act
of 1870 exempts her from compliance with the
treaty is absurd on two different grounds;
first, because municipal law cannot annul
an international treaty, and second, because
she never pretended that the act Of 1870
had this effect until six years after its pas
sage. If it really had this effect the British
Parliament passed an act which was breach
of national faith, and the censure to be pro-
nounced by our government is equally de-
served, whether the violation Of solemn
compact is committed by the Parliament or
the Ministry, or whether the discredit is
shared by both. The United States will hold
Great Britain answerable for plain breach
of treaty obligation and leave her to
distribute the responsibility as she
pleases among the several branches
OF her own government. All We can look
at is the fact that she has refused to
execute the treaty in its plain meaning and
the sense in which she herself understood it
until We demanded the extradition Of Wins
low. 1t is believed that there are motives
for this sudden freak which will not rebound