National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-07-17
The Extradition Difficulty.

lr rom the n. L. Herald.
The summary of Lord Derby's last note,
which appeared among our cable dispatches
yesterday, brings the important question of
extradition again into view. The extradition
article in the treaty of 1S42 is defunct, and no
attempt will be made by either government to
resuscitate it. 1t is, therefore, necessary to
agree upon a new treaty. We trust there will
be no needless delay in the negotiations, and
that both Mr.. Fish and Lord Derby will ap-
proach the question in a spirit of justice and
Cancellation. We believe Secretary Fish mas
been entirely right in the recent controversy,
and the fact that an influential portion of the
English press has admitted the strength of his
position and acknowledged the force of his
arguments ought to satisfy his pride. His
arguments, cogent as they were, are spent
weapons. They related to the obligations of
treaty provision which is practically annulled,
and both governments must now approach the
subject as if it were new question.
1t would be inconsistent with justice and
with the interest of both countries to leave the
matter in its present shape. Each country is
now safe asylum for criminals and outcasts,
and neither has any interest in harboring the
cutthroats and scoundrels who may escape
from the other. AS Mr.. Webster correctly
said in 1912: "The surrender to justice of per-
SONS who, having committed high crimes, seek
asylum in the territories of a nsighboring ma
ton, would seem to be an act due to the cause
of general justice and properly belonging to
the present state of civilization and inter
course" This obligation is peculiarly strong
between the United States and Great Britain.
"The British provinces of North America"
said Mr.. Webster, "are separated from the
fata of 10 II Dinn by nFc
sand miles, and along portions of this line the
amount of population on either side is quite
considerable, while the passage of the boundary
is always easy" Does Canada want to be a
place of refuge for all the felons who can fly
across the border? Do we want to harbor her
criminals and take the risk of their repeating
on our soil the crimes for which they fedl 1t
will be a scandal to civilization If things are
allowed to remain long in their present state.
A treaty on the proposed English basis
would be better for this country than none; q
treaty on our proposed basis would also be
better for England herself and her colonies
than none. When both parties have so large
and substantial an interest it would be absurd
for either to stand out on punctilios.
The point on which Lord Derby chiefly in
sists is the right of the surrendering Govern
ment to determine whether the person de-
manded would be indictable under its own
laws on the evidence presented. This is lead
ing feature of the treaty of 1912, which pro-
vides that a surrender shall be made "only
uron such evidence of criminality as, accord
ing to the laws of the place where the fugitive
or person so charged shall be found, would
justify his apprehension and commitment for
trial if the crime or offense had there been
committed" This principle may be preserved
in new treaty without any great obstruction
to justice. 1t would not happen in one case
out of twenty that the person demanded would
have committed any other crime than that on
which his extradition is sought. If the fugi-
tive is known to have committed more than
one crime, let him be demanded for both or for
all, and let provision be inserted in the new
treaty binding each Government to examine
the evidence on each charge when more than
one is made. This would cover every case ex-
cept that of undiscovered crimes, and these
would be so few and rare that it would make
comparatively little difference whether they
were provided for in the treaty or not. If the
two Governments will begin negotiations in a
right spirit there ought to he no difficulty in
making treaty which would cover nearly all
the crimes committed by fugitives from JUS