The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-08-31
TIE EXTRACTION TROUBLE.
Explanation Of the Treaty and
Its Bearings.
The Cases Of WinslOw
and Lawrence.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD

proper application, the criminals Of escaping
the jurisdiction Of the other shall be surrendered
the full justice OF the country whose laws they have
violated and avoided. There is no such spirit exist
ing between Englishmen and Americans seeks to
annoy either by protecting vioators of its laws,
be they revenue laws any other laws. On ihe
contrary the public temper both this country and
across the Atlantic desires nothing much see
maleiactors brought 10 justice" Each nation has
respect for the criminal code of the other and
dence in its rules of evidence and general admins
traton The present moment is the most favorable
for fresh and thorough reconsideration Of extradon
by these two English speaking nations. unhindcred
by former treaty or statutory commitments
1872
Since the treaty OF 1912 is dead as 70 extraditon
there is little advantage in the be gained by
discussing whether the Interpretation Of Mr. Fish or
Lord Derby was correct The controversy upon
the intention OF the contracting parties expressed
the disputed section Lord Derby IN his later note s.
throws aside the legislation OF 1870 and stands or falls
the text of the treaty. The operative words are
that each nation will, upon mutual requsilion de-
liver up to justice all persons provided they be charged
with any offence specified in the treaty and the COM
mission of IT is adequately proven, that the arrest
may not be purely arbitrary Each promises deliver
criminals charged up to the 'Jusce OF the other
there is definition of what "the JUSTICE each is or
shall be. Both nations promise that any person cs-
capcs from country to the other and that person
proved primd dce evidence have been guilty of
either OF Offences he shall be surrendered to
'hc justice" OF the other What justcey Justice for
what crimep The treaty ID utterly silent, and thus is
larry open TO the Interpretation that each nation said
10 the other substantially is:"Wo Will take the
trouble to arrest and deliver AL persons but if you
satisfy us that person has committed either of the
seven enumerated offences will surrender IN to your
own treatment" The previous treaty Of 1894 is quite
rs broad in its promises, excepting that it
only murder and forgery. 1t declares and undertakes
that each viii deliver up to justice all persons who
beng charged with murder forgery committed
within the jurisdiction OF either, shall seek an asylum
within any OF the countries Of the other" Not word
Is said about trial and punishment for other crimes.
The definition refers TO the character of the crime
which will be an inducement and justification for the
surrcndering government 10 put its arrestng ma
chnery in motion. And yet, on the terse and
pcit language of the treaty OF 1872 Mr. Fish Lord
Derby have taken the two conflicting views set forth
in the words OF the latter spoken in the House OF
Lords
The american contention is that when the forms
by treuty have been through when
dton IS once effected the person exradcted
him although he may have been acquitted OF the
charge on which the exradton was granted although in
the original his 10 adj
any Other imputed offence although
included in the list OF extradon crimes We on the
ether SIDE contend that rcron who has taken refuge in
England aud has surrendered AFTER certain
recdnTs for the OF being tried specific caarge
only lent 70 speak the which claims
him the purposes OF that till aud upon charge
50 S SToGsa he ND not O@Sa S en we say he is emitted
Iepttion O. the preliminary inquiry which necessary be-
he must have opportunity of returning to England.
Excluding the OF purely political crime (Which
Will consider later onl what objection ought
there to ue against this American contcn-
If formulated in trcatyy l it to
be agreed both sides that crime should be repressed
that laws should be obeyed that any violation thereof
should be punished in the locality where the offence
committed; that neither country should seek TO
limit tho liabilities of n foreign offender, and that
nciher should association with the malefactors
Of the other What foundaton in natural justice or
International duty has the English contention9 Why
should England trouble herself revise the solemn
diplomatic Endorsement OF the United States
uron judicial charge OF crime further than to
identify the o1endcr2 Why need the United
States institute preliminary inquiry before surrender
to ascertain whether an English Grand Jury magis
,rate has erred in charging a demanded person with
the crime of murderY Why cannot both governments
be satisfied surrender is concerned. with the
solemn diplomatic assurance OF the other that it
facie ruer Both governments must in any
event deal with prlmd tac,e case. as be-
tween US and Canada tor example, would there
be any greater rsS for innocence, under such
raugemcn than there is under the existing constitu-
hona arrangement for extradtion between the states
OF Union? NY inquiry now only applies to Great
Britain and her colonies where the English criminal
law Is administered.
CAUSES OF THE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATION
1t may be asked why this conflict OF Interpretation
OF the treaty never appeared from ls42 TO 1902 And
what was the occasion OF the difference at this last
nan Ia ~ A sal
seres OF frauds were discovered against the
New York Custom House. The perpetrauon
vowed entries OF merchandise under fictitious
names, and The signing of fictitious firm names to each
entry paper. oath, and bond required by law. one
Lawrence was detected the active agent OF the
frauds and The signer of The names OF fictitious firms
He fed 10 England. After his light the Grand Jury
found two indictments against him for forging
the signatures To two oaths ana the bonds Tor two
portations and on each warrants were Issued for his
arrest Besides these. federal magistrate issued war
rants Tor his arrest ten similar iorgeries
which were made an equal number OF impurta-
tions. Secretary Fish made requsision for his
tradition The dozen OF forgery set forth in
these documents. The government sent to London
Custom House witnesses to every material charge
each OF the dozen lmporlatons. Lawrence
rested anc taken before SIR Thomas Henry, London
The American Legation 10 London retained an eminent
barrstcr Mr. Muions, TO prosecute In us behalf Law
renee employed Mcssrs. Lewis 4 Lewis While Law
renee was in prison awaiting examination there
VAS brought 10 him an English treatise on
exirAdl.ion ana ne began to study his
aw OF 1870, which iorbids HIS trial any other
than the eNlTadion crime When brought before she
magistrate the hrst importation and forgery taken up
those under the arm name OF {. l.. Banding *
70 III Is counsel objected that signing fictitious
was not treaty forgery, but the magistrate overru ed
The objection Tho examination OF that importation
completed. and the Court adjourned Lawrence
remembered that he had power OF attorney signed
by woman-C. J.. Blanding. IL occurred TO him that
u would IN New York rebut the charge OF forging G.
l. Banding Co. and he whispered 20 hs counsel TO
arrange win the other side TO SO no further but to
rxtradiic him on the bandng charge ard lac would
make appeal IN London on the magistrates rulings
on law quests his counsel succeeded and against
the positive instructions OF General Scheuck Mr.
Mulens ~ prove all the charges In all the imporlaiions
In detail, the examination stopped, and the cXtrldi
ton rccitcd the ''crmen to be "orglng and
uttering a certain bond and AFFIDAVIT" What bond and
afidavtY Nothing was sand. Lawrence came TO New
York and meanwhile the Grand Jury going
with It's examinations. was IT. duty regardless OF
tradition avs and finally returned into court several
Indictments covering the whole frauds. deputy col
Il L.. IN H.