The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-05-04
,winslow---Agairl.

sssl Winslow---Again.
rrharc seems to be no longer any doubt
.,,at the British Government has positively
determined that hereafter # will surrender
70 the United States no alleged criminal
whose extradition may be demanded
under the treaty OF 1912, unless our
Government will pledge itself that the
alleged criminal shall not be tried
for any other offence than the one
charged IN the warrant Of eStradition. It
seems to be settled also that the United
States Government will deem this detcrmi-
nation of the British Government suffi-
cient reason for demanding the abrogation
OF the treaty itself.
We have heretofore discussed briefly the
questions involved, arguing that it is clearly
impossible for either the Parliament OF Great
Britain or the Congress OF the United States
to change treaty by its separate aud indie
pendent action. But there are other points
in the case, which render it doubtful to say
the least whether ours or the British Gov
ernmcnt is in the right. Wehavc read many
articles in our eNchanges-and particularly
in the leading dailies Of New York city
which ,urported to treat the questions at
issue between the two Governments fairly;
and vet we have never seen in any paper so
much as an intimation that Great Britain
had even plausible reasons for her refusal to
surrender WINsLow under the circum-
stances.
In our first article on this subject we said
that we admired the conduct OF England i'll
throwing her protecting shield over the
iriendless criminal, Now, it has been suS-
nested to us that in this remark may be
found hint as to the true cause Of the re-
gusal OF England to surrender W1SsLoW or
any other alleged criminal unless the pledge
required be given. England has long been
the refuge OF the oppressed OF every cline
II has been her boast for many years that
I'slaves cannot breathe in England that
contact with her soil makes them freemen.
Political refugees are safe in that glorious
country, let them come whence they may.
She surrenders no man charged with Of
fences merely political. Let Us suppose,
for instance. that the United States
Government in 1866 had demanded OF
her the extradition Of some OF the southern
"rcbels" who were known to be in that
country: Would she have surrendered
them as political offenders Hardly. But
no one who knows the INSCRIPTIONS men
that rule the Radical party could doubt for
moment that such men as they are would
have made ont q warrant charging these
refugees with some crime mentioned in the
treaty of 1912, intending thus merely to
secure their return to this country, and,
having got possession OF their bodies,
10 try them for what they called "treason.'
British statesmen know well enough that
our Government has fallen into the hands
OF lnDrinciplcd, unscrupulous, and corrupt
men; and whilst these adicctiyes are by no
means applicable to Mr.. FISH, our present
Secretary OF State, it is not to be expected
that honest JOHN BULL can draw a clearly
defined line OF dcmarcati0n between Mr..
FISH and his associates.
Again: 1t would never do for England to
surrender political refugees from the CONT
nent. Her people would not allow it. Re-
member how the sturdy Britishers mobbed
HAYNAU some years ago, and how they Missed
DoS CARLOS few weeks ago. DoE CARLOS,
it is true, was himself 4 political refugee, but
represented the class usually depressing
others-not the oppressed. Even Don CAR
LOS, however, would be protected by the
English il his Government were to demand
his eXtradition.
So that it is not altogether certain that our
country is in the right and England in the
wrong on the question under discussion.
Her requirement that the offending person
shall be tried only for the offence for which
his extradition is demanded is reasonable
and proper from her point OF view. The
pledge required is one that every Govern
ment in Europe could easily give. But
the right OF our Government to give
it is not so clear. WINSTON has
committed no offence against the United
States Government, and cannot be tried fo1
forgery by any Federal court. His offence
was a violation Of the laws OF Massachu.
sets. II surrendered he will be turned over
mt once to the authorities of that State. How,
then, can Mr. FISH give the required pledge
Here comes up the old question OF the re.
spective rights of the Federal and State
governments under our system; and here
we drop the subject.
-