, 1876-05-04

A4k1AAA "4AA EiNN4AANUt
1t must be admitted by both tho English
md the Americans, without regard to tho rel
ativo merits Of tho controversy, TINT tho ab-
rogation Of the e1tradition treaty, which has
grown out Of the WISslow case, ID nlost un-
fortunate for the cause of Justice in botl,
countries. It is not complimentary CON-
ment on tho temper or Judgment Of either
Government TINT two great nations, speaking
tho sumo language, Of tho sumo voice and
lisoraturo, with largo stretch Of contiguous
territory, and claiming tho highest position
in civilization and tho science Of politics,
should hold such relations to oaoh other az
mutually to exclude the surrender for trial of
persons indicted for heinoua ofrenses. Yet
this il precisely tho condition Of a1airs con-
aequent upon the formal abrogation Of the
oxtralition clause Of the WEBSTER -Aauuua-
TON treaty Of 1912. Great Britain having dis
charged tho forger W1Na1ow, against whom
it was admitted there was q 7,,4ma .facie case
of crime included in the treaty, of
course there remained nothing for the
representatives Of this Government to
do except to give formal notification
of tho abandonment Of the treaty. Any dif-
forenco as to tho merits OF the caae must be-
basod On tho action of tho Government prior
to this notice; and whether tho British Gov
ornment or tue United statea Government
were at fault can best bo determined by m
impartial review Of both silea Of the oontro-
vc1yy.
The English Parliament, after long md
careful examination Of the general question
Of e1tralition, which had boen intrusted to
such eminent men IS Mh1, FonsrxR, Sir
RobERr ColL1En, and others, passed law
IN 1870 adopting the French rulo Of practice,
expressed in the following terms;
fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered Ii \
foreign State unless proyalon IA made By tbs Law OF
that State. or by arrangement that tbs fugitive GRIM
ihA1 shsll not until ho haH been restored on had an
opportunity Of rsuraink 10 Usr Mseaty's iou1alons
bo ietaned or tried in that foreign Btsts for INV
o1euss committed prior to h!s surrender othsr than
tho extssdtlon crttno proved by tho facts On which
tho surrender Ia grounded.
When W1ssLow had been apprchended,
aud prs1a Jscse caAe made out against him
for forgery, for which his surrender had
beon demanded, tho British Government,
under this law, demanded guarantee that,
1t surrendered, Ia Should not be tried for
any other odonse than forgery. Secretary
FISH declined 10 give any such ASSURANCE,
partly because no such guarantee ia required
by the WEnsrER-AaununroN treaty, aud
partly bocatse 1t is the practice Of the Courts,
under our form OF Government, to aysort
thcir control Of prisoner who has lawfully
como into their possession without consult
ing tile Executive Of the nation. But the
british Government still porsisted in the de-.
mand for the guarantee, not only by virtue of
my right conferred by their municipal law
OF a later date than that OF the treaty, but on
account Of the justice Of tho principle in.
yolyed, and tie alleged violations that had
been mado OF this principle. 1t was held By
tho British authorities that, though not er.
pressly cot forth in the WkpsrkH.Asu
DuaTos treaty, this principle WIS in,-
plsed iuasmuch a. certain cri1ues were
deanoa for which extradition could
n demanded, while other crimes were omit
ted from the enumeration. 1t was also held
that this principle had received international
recognition, and there was 10 valid reason
why the. United statea Government should
rotuso to admit it by giving tbs ASSURANCE TO-
quested when It would be lnanitcstly wrong
to tonaxue the ter1us OF the treaty in any
other wsy.
On thu part Of America, Secretary F,aa
has argud that, in it, relations with this