The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-08
WINSLOW'S EXTRACTION.
The Treaty Complication With Great
Britain.
SECRETARY FlSHS POSITION.
Winslow Patiently Waiting His
Discharge.

| DlSCIldI-4C.
| AMERICAN TREATY RIGHTS COMPLICATION WITH
THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN-sEC-
RETARY FIsH's POSITION AS OFFICIALLY Ex-
/ PRESSED FROM wAsHINGToN-THE AsHBUR-
| TON TREATY NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. WAITING
| HIS DISCHARGE.
LONDON April %, 1870
Reuters telegram, appearing In tho London
papers this morning. refers to despatch sent by Mr.
Fish respecting the extraditon of Wnslow who Is
still in custody alleged forgery, but will be released
the 18th OF May. unless understanding between
the two governments Is In the meantime arrived at
The despatch referred delivered at tho Foreign
once about Saturday the ed but no reply has
yet been made to II, owing domestic allction in
the household of Lord Derby.
AMERICAN POSITION.
AS far be learned, the United States govern
ment firmly adhercs to the treaty OF 1872 while tho
British government maintains that tho provisions of
the treaty have been superseded by OF Para-
passed the 9th of August, 1870 by virtue Of
which 1t is held that
fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a
foreign State unless provision made by The law Of that
STATE by arrangement that the fugitive shall not.
until he has been restored had opportunity Of
turning to Her Maesty's donnons, be detained or
tried that foreign state ofencc committed
prior his surrender o.hcr than the cxraiton
proved by the facts on which the surrender Is
grounded
ENGLISH REASONS FOR REFUSING TO GIVE UP wINsLow
On this which is contained in section 3. subsection 2,
OF the referred TO- the British government rest
their argument and refuse the extradton Of Winslow
The OF Parliament however holds (scction 81
that "whcn fugitive criminal is brought before the
police magistrate the magistrate has the ursdc-
ton and powers may be, II the prisoner
brought before him charged with an indctablc
offence committed in England' and in tho following
paragraph (lO) il Is provided that
II the foreign warrant authorizing the arrcs ID duly
authenticated and such evidence produced as subject
to the provisions OF this act would, according to
the law OF England, justify his commtal in England
the magistrate shall commit him to prison, but other
wise shall order him 70 be discharged.
This evidence has been furnished by the United
States authorities. The Secretary OF tho American
Legation has appeared at Bow street several
authenticate the warrant and the proceedings
against Winslow, but the Attorney General, Sir John
Hokcn steps and points 10 the act and argues that
tho provisions of this
ACT OF AUGUST, 1870,
ovcrridcs treaty stipulatons. He forgets hvwever,
that this very act the aid OF which he nyokes
to liberatc the prisoner is another provision, which
reads as ollows-
SECTION 27.-The acts specified In the third schedule
TO this act hereby repealed 10 the whole OF Her
Majcsty's domrioDs and this act, with the exception
Of anything contained which is inconsistent with
the referred to in the acts repealed shall APP
ply regards crimes committed other before after
The passing OF this act In the case Of foreign States
with which these treaties made. In the same
as If an order in Council referring to such treaties
had been made in pursuance OF this act and as il such
order had directed that every law ana ordinance which
Is in force in any BRUSH possession With respect TO
such treaties should have effect as part Of this act
TUE PARLIAMENTARY LAW on THE SUBJECT.
This clearly shows tnat whatever the act Of Parlia
provided for to the contrary, the treaty spula
tons with the Unied States hold good and the honor
OF England well as that Of the United States in
volved the OF the stpulations referred
to This seems be fully recognized by the Foreign
oicc and does appear that from II Lord Derby
has emanated any objection to the OF Wins
low. From the information l can gather, the sus-
picon turks my mind that other motives lie at the
bottom OF this refusal Tho extradition OF Law
renee has often been commented as hav-
ing been prccipitatc. Lawrence, argue some London
lawyers. not forger but simply a
smuggcr. Many persons Liverpool and other large
commercial centres Of England implicated in this
and similar smuggling transactions. 1t is surm,sed
that the influence OF these parties brought bear
the present There are. Of course, proofs
wherewthai substantate my suspicion, but nom all
can learn have doubt that the wealth and influ
encc OF some mercantile secretly at work to
VALIDITY THESE TREATY sTIrULATroNs.
However that may be- 1t is interesting refer to tho
fact that prior TO the passing Of tho OF Parliament Of
1870 Parliamentary committee had inquired tho
working OF extraditon treaties. Before that commit
tee in June, 1885, the Hon. Edmond Hammond gave
important evidence, aud in to question put TO
him. made the following statement-
We admit in this country (Engandl that II O man IL
bond dde tried Tor the ocicc Tor which he was given
nm here q OF y
tired for another offence either antecedcnty commit
ted or not.
THIS reply given on reference being made per-
son who cxtraditcd charge OF robbery commit
ted board tho steamer pho Parsons, but which the
jury disagreed nasmuch tho prisoner had been
ing under n commission of the Confederate authoritiss
In pursuance OF tho inquiry. Mr.. Richard
MullcLs, who had been at that period solicitor to
the Association OF Bankers against Frauds
and still holds that Office. and than whom
no higher authority the subject could be found,
reply to tho following question put to him BY the
late Mr.. Mill
AN AUTHORITY on SUBJECT.
GAS I understand it. the treaty with America
would not prevent our trying man for diff
icrcnt offence from that for which he had been given
ups'' replied, 1T would not; there stipulation
that he should not be tired for any other offence. y
To a subsequent question put by Mr. MILL as fol-
lows:-.
would you wish 10 extend that state OF things to
foreign countriesr Mr. MulIens emphatcaly replied,
"wth regard to America found any difficulty
about IT, but since have heard the question discussed
In this room begin to think little more about IL.
and with regard TO tho continent OF Europa, might
be necessary that there should DO stipulations
to what should happen TO man II he were acquitted
OF tho crime with which he charged under the
tradition treaty"
II appears toIcrably clear from tho foregoing that
Mr. Mullens referred 10 political prisoners and had not
TN his mind tho possibility of extradiing political prs-
,ucrs II demanded by the United States
FRENCH CASE.
may add that tho view taken by the United States
Is not only shared by tho Foreign onico officials tat
least far | can learn find that to DO the easel,
but tho Interpretation which the has receives Is
even confirmed, directly and indirectly by shc Queen
Bench Division Of tho High Court OF Justice In the case
OF BOWER subsequently to the passing OF tho