The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-31
THE EXTRACTION OF wINsLOw.

THE ExTRADITI0N OF WINsLOW.
There seems TO be hitch in the pro-
ceedings for the surrender of Winslow,
Boston's pet criminal, by Great Britain
under the extradition treaty. by the tenth
article of the treaty of 1s42, between the
United States and Great Britain, it is agreed
that each nation, upon the demand of the
other, shall surrender persons charged
with forgery-the crime for which a de-
mand ia made for Wipslow--and certain
other specified crimes. In 1870, the Brit
ish parliament enacted that no extradition
treaties should be negotiated without a
provso, that criminal surrendered there
under shall be tried only for the crime for
which he is extradited. In accordance
with the provisions Of this act, the British
government refuse TO surrender Winslow,
unless the president shall secure the pas
sage of a law providing that he shall be
tried only for the crime on which the de-
mand for his surrender is made. This our
government refuses to do, but has renewed
its demand and now awaits the final deter
mination of the British government.
In commenting on these facts the Bos-
ton Globe says that cit is just as competent
4" for congress or for parliament to abro-
" gate the treaty of 1912 altogether, as it
" is to modify its provisions, or put re-
" strictions upon its execution which were
" not contemplated when it was made. In
this we think it ia mistaken. The treaty
itself-thc "Ashburton treaty"-provides
| that the extradiiion clause may be termi-
mated on the simple notice of either party,
without having any effect whatever on the
remaining provisions of the treaty. We
think it perfectly competent for congress
to make the Limitation proposed. We
think, moreover, it should do SO. The
object of the treaty is plain enough. 1t is
to provide for The surrender OF criminals
| only 10 be tried for certain specified crimes.
| III the government of the United States,
for instance, is in duty bound to surrender
to Great Britain person charged with
| forgery what 'is to prevent person
| guilty of that offense being claimed there
of nations prohibits the surrender of per-
sous charged with political offenses, yet
| ii is claimed that their surrender may be
demanded of right, and the surrender must
be made, if another crime can be proved
against them when the only object 10 to try
them for political offensc.
1t may be that in order to guard against
| this, notice must be given 10 terminate this
clause and then negotiate new treaty; but
| it seems to us that it would be perfectly
| competent to accomplish the same result
by concurrent legislation. If it can be
done in this way, it would certainly be
| more expeditions. In this case of WINS
| low, the probability may be that he would
be tried only for the crime for which he
was extradited, but even this is question
| able. The objection is made, not because
Crest Britain is unwilling to surrender
Winslow, but because Charles L.. Lawrence
of New York was. Surrendered by Great
Britain for the crime of forgery-the same
| for which Winslow is claimed-when, in
fact, the United States was unable to con-
vict him therefor, and, having him in Gus
| tody on euoh eurrender, V,V~~VaS ~ ny
| him for smugglng-an offense not recog-
nlzed by the treaty-and the courts sustain
| lis action in so doing. The courts have
decided that person cannot be arrested on
criminal charge for the purpose of bring
| ing him into the Jurisdiction of the court
that he may answer TO a civil suit-why is
not the same principle sound, and equally
applicable to, different classes of crime un
| der an extradition treaty