The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-26

pcUhkus
Curiosities OF the Extradition Ncgo-
tiation.
Two members of Parliament on Thursday
last gave notice of inquiries into the condi-
ton Of the relations between Great Britain
and this country on the subject of the ex-
tradition Of criminals. These inquiries will
be based on the papers entitled, "Corre-
spondence Respecting Extradition," which
we're laid before Parliament on the 9Th of
June, and copies of which were received in
this country by the last steamer. A COM
parison Of this official publication with q
similar one submitted to Congress by the
State Department on the 10th of June reveals
some singular and disagreeable omissions in
the return made to Parliament, the reasons
for v hich deserve inquiry in England.
In the first place, these papers were pre-
sented to Parliament on the 9Th of june and
are supposed to contain the entire correspon-
dence- But an important despatch of SEQ
rotary Fish is suppressed This despatch is
dated May % it was received by Lord Derby
on the 9th of June, as is shown by published
despatch from Mr.. Hoffman to the State
Department of that date, and it was in con-
sequence of the receipt of that despatch Of
Mr.. Fish that the British government asked
the remand of Winslow until the following
18th. Why was this important despatch
from the United States, received two days
before the papers were sent to Parliament,
omitted?
But there are still other omissions in this
curious return to Parliament. The last
despatch it contains is one from Lord Derby
to Sir Edward Thornton, dated May 80, or
seven days after Mr.. Fish's despatch. In
this Lord Derby says FL have received
your telegram of the 9th inst, &c. But no
such telegram appears in this return-no
telegram of that date from Sir Edward
Thornton.
But q more serious matter remains. In
the same despatch of Lord Derby to Sir
Edward Thornton reference is made to ''Your
despatch of the LIST inst. that is to say, of
May i, which is said to refer to remarks of
Secretary Fish in regard to the wording of
an act of Parliament. But no such despatch
from Sir Edward Thornton is published.
Was there any such despatch of that
datep Referring to the papers submitted
to Congress we find a memorandum of a
conversation between Secretary Fish and Sir
Edward Thornton, dated May 81 1t is sup
possible that Sir Edward may have sent
telegram concerning some part of this con-
versation to Lord Derby some days later sav
on the 1st Of June. But in that case how
could Lord Derby refer to it on May 80,
unless, indeed, Lord Derby's despatch was
antedated, and was really written after he
had received despatch of the LIST of June
from Sir Edward Thornton, or even after, on
the 9th Of June, he had received a copy of
Secretary Fish's despatch Of the 22d
of May; for in that we find, to our surprise,
the very remark concerning the peculiar
wording of the British statute to which Lord
Derby replies This matter isv very awkward,
and we hope rigid inquiry will be made
in England, both as to why Mr.. Fishs de-
spatch and Sir Edward Thorntons two
dispatches were omitted in the return to
Parliament, and how it comes that under the
ostensible date of May 20 Lord Derby replies
to an objection made by Mr.. Fish in de-
spatch dated May - which was not deliv-
cred until the 9th of June, and which he has
suppressed in his official publication of the
correspondence. tt