National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-05-03
FFDNEsDAY M0RNING::::::::::MAY 3, i
EXTRACTION OF CRIMINALS,


We are just now launching out into 8
new sea of speculation upon the question
oftke extradition of persons charged will
crime. The matter was adjusted thirty
four years ago by Daniel Webster and
Lord Ashburton in a most satisfactory and
business like as well as statesmanlike man.
ney, in the following plain and uImbi gu
Gus language:
"AsHBURToN TREATY: ARTICLE Y, 1912 Ex-
TRADITION.
at is agreed that the United States and Her
Britannia Majesty shall, upon mutual requisi-
ton by them, or their ministers, officers or au
thoritles, respectively made, deliver up to JUS
tice all persons who, being charged with the
crimeof murder, or assault with intent to CON-
nit murder or piracy, or arson, or robbery or
forgery, or the utterance of forged paper COM
mttted in the Jurisdiction Of either, shall seek
an asylum or shall be found within the terri
tories OF the other. Provided that this shall only
he done upon such evidence of criminality as,
according TO the laws Of the place where the
fugitive or person so charged shall be found,
would justify his apprehension and commit
ment for trial If the crime or offense had been
there committed and the respective judges
and other magistrates of the two Governments
shall have power, jurisdiction and authority,
upon complaint made upon oath, to issue 3
warrant for the apprehension of the fugitive
or person so charged, that he may be brought
before such judges or other magistrates re-
spectively, to the end that the evidence of
criminality may be heard and considered: and
if, on such hearing, the evidence be deemed
sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the
duty of the examining Judge or magistrate to
certify the same to the proper Executive au-
thority, that warrant may issue for the sur
e
apprehension and delivery shall be borne and
betrayed by the party who makes the requisi.
tiol and receives the fugitive"
Article NJ of the same treaty provides
that the tenth article shall continue in force
until one or the other of the parties shall
signify Its wish to terminate it, and no
longer.
What can be palmer than this! What
more can any nation honestly want than
this? Under the common-sense construc-
ton ofthis treaty we have progressed with
out difficulty during thirty years. In 1870,
however the British Parliament appears
to have passed an act which it is now
claimed gives the British Government
some new right under the treaty. OF
course, this is absurd on its face Every
body knows that no act of Parliament or
of Congress can enlarge or diminish the
rights of either party under the treaty.
Either one may at will give notice requi-
site for discontinuance of the convention.
And this would be the proper course to
pursue if either party should become dis
satisfied with its terms.
But we are little fast. On reflection it
is pretty clear that Great Britain did ac-
quire new and hitherto unenviable right
by the act of 1870. She seems to have &C.
quired the right of ."suspicion. Her
present course in the Winslow case ap-
pears to be based entirely upon mean and
unworthy suspicion" that the Govern.
ment of the United States does not intend
to try Mr.. Winslow for the crime upon
which the warrant of extradition is based.
Why are we thus suspected like common
cheats? What bad faith have the United
States ever been guilty Of toward Great
Britain that she should now demand of
them security that the regular course of
procedure, which has obtained in conso-
nance with and illustrative of the extradi-
ton clause of the Ashburton treaty, shall
be observed in the Winslow case? None
in the world. The implied suspicion con-
veyed in this demand for guaranty has
more the appearance Of a studied insult,
with design to provoke hostilities, than
anything else. Had Great Britain simply |
wanted modification of the provisions of
the treaty in respect Of mutual guarantees
that the surrendered fugitive should be
tried first upon the charge on which he |
was extTadited, she had only to intimate |
that desire IN order TO obtain respectful |
answer. Had she wanted to discontinue |
the operation of the treaty she had only to
serve the required notice. 1t was not
necessary or proper to precipitate the issue
upon Winslow's case.
Great Britain should have known that |
this Government would have too much re-
spect for its-own dignity either to forget |
or neglect to try our criminals after having
gone to the expense of recovering them.
She should also know that its Executive
would have too much regard for his oath
of Office and the execution of tie laws in
obedience thereto to promise, assure or
guarantee to Great Britain or any other
nation that we will not try our criminals
upon any indictments we may have pend
ing against them for other crimes if we
fail to convict them Of the charges upon
which they were extradited. The spirit
peryadiEg the laws giving effect to this
clause of the treaty shows the design to
have been that the fugitive should be first
tried upon the charge named in the war