National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-07-27
"pFRFInE ALBION.u

"PERFIDE ALBION"
Earl Derby has made a reply to the note
of Mr.. Fish, dated the 22d of May. 1t
bears the date of June 80, and is a mixture
of special pleading and apology such as is
rarely to be met with in the annals of d.
plomacy. He disclaims having designed to
coerce an advantage under menace, and de-
plores any rupture of proceedings unde::
the extradition clause of the treaty Of 1912.
He longs for q new arrangement, which
shall give Great Britain in the future all he
has been demanding IN the Winslow case,
and insists that the right of asylum for pc.
litical offenses is jeopardized by our con-
struction of the late treaty. With all this
is mixed quantity of dIsingenuous petit
Jogging and shifting of the real issues in
volved which would disgrace a country
lawyer.
The point first made by the British Gov
eminent was that we should give guar
anty, never before demanded under the
treaty, that we would not try Winslow for
any offense other than the one upon which
he should be extradited. This demand
Mr. Fish refused to concede, on the ground
that it was not warranted by the text of
the treaty; that it was unprecedented.
and that in Winslow's case it might defeat
the ends of justice, because Winslow was
charged with numerous extraditable crimes
for which he was under Indictment, and
for which he was liable to be tried in Mas
sachusetts, but only one of which was
proven as necessary to his exHadtion.
The same was true in the case of Law
renee. But both were claimed under the
charge of forgery, a crime defined alike by
both British and American law. 1t ap-
pears, however, that it came to the knowl-
edge of the British Foreign Office that
Lawrence was also under indictment for
smuggling, an offense not in the list Of ex-
tradItable crimes, and the trial of which
might disclose operations affecting the
trade of Great Britain and the honor of
both British and American merchants
Such an exposure Lord Derby desired to
avoid, and conceived of no better method
than that of breaking the treaty in the case
Of Winslow. Indeed he did not hesitate
to instance his suspicious that it was the
intention of tue Government of the United
States to try Lawrence for the crime of
smuggling as the reason for making the
demand of extraordinary guarantees in the
cases of Winslow, Brent and Gray. 1t
mattered not that his suspicious were
groundless, and that his demand was IN
warranted by the terms of the compact.
He obsiinately persisted in his menace, and
finally committed an infraction of the
treaty by refusal to deliver up three Of
our criminals upon no other or better
ground than that of suspicion that we in
for crime not included in the extraditsble
list.
And yet in all this the noble Earl fails to
see any attempt at menace or coercion. He
ackno Wedges that Great Britain had in
the case of Heilbronn done the very thiRg
which he now only suspected US of in
tending to do. But he regrets that such a
case had occurred, although its enormity
does not appear to have struck him with
any particular force until it was cited by
Mr.. Fish. All this, however, is foreign to
the present aspect Of the question. Earl
Derby insists that because we had once
evInced q willingness to reconstruct the ex-
tradition clause of the treaty by enlargiag
the list of extraditable offenses and en-
bodying the guaranty recently demanded
under the menace of an infraction of the
treaty upon refusal, we should at once hunt
up and sign such a compact p suit the
convenience of Her MaJesty's Government.
The plain English OF Earl Derby's last
note is that he did not suppose Mr.. Fish
would recognize an insult when offered by
Great Britain, or if he did would not have
the spirit and courage to resent it. He
now desires to have his lame excuses re-
ceived as an apology and to be permitted
to dictate a new treaty without making any
amends for the injury done US by the re-
lease of our criminals. He has learned
long ere this, through the message Of the
President to Congress covering the CORE.
spondence, that the present Administration
is not only aware of the insolent arrogance of
his conduct in this affair, but that it has the
nerve to resent it in dignified and proper
manner. 1t is our hope aud our firm be-
lief that Congress will not only sustain the
course of the Administration in the matter,
but that it will also authorize it to refuse
to hold further diplomatic relations with
Great Britain until an ample apology is
rendered for the insul and the proper
dmende is made for the release of those
criminals whose surrender was due to us
under the terms of the late treaty.
1t is necessary that we should under
stand what Great Britain means by treaty
If it is compact by which only one party
is bound, but which the other party may
infringe at pleasure regardless of the pro-
vision governing its termination, let US
have it SO defined. When that definition
is fixed and understood, the utility OF
treaties will not be discernible to the
average American eye. As people we
are not partial to bargains or contracts
which are all on one side. We are law
abiding and peace-loving people as q
whole; but we are quite as sensitive to
wrongs, sights and impertinences as our
English cousins. The extradition clause
of the Ashburton (1s42) treaty was made
interminable except by due notice given
by either of the contracting parties of de-
sire for its discontinuance. Has Earl
Derby given such notice? If so, it has
been served in the most rude and undiplo-
matte form. 1t was not the intention of
the compact that such notice should be
served during the Presidency of cases so as
to affect their determination. But
Great Brilisn in this instance
has rudely, defantly and menacingly In
terjected a demand tantamount to a new
provision in the treaty during the consid-
Grafton Of a case pending, and, in effect,
insolently said, yield this or take moth
ing by your motion" The demand being
refused she declined to deliver the Grim
inals claimed. This course is justly looked
upop b,yt tho panp1a Of ITn;taJ Itato, -,