The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-26

Secretary Fish's reply to Lord Derhy's
last note was, it is understood, sent by last
Wednesdays steamer. 1t is supposed to be
final argument, restatement Of the posi-
ton Of the United States and request that
either Winslow be surrendered at once on
the terms proposed by our government and
in accordance with the treaty or that the
British government shall, without further
discussion, refuse, and thereby violate and
abrogate the treaty.
Secretary Fish is right if he has taken this
attitude. There is no room for argument in
this matter. The English journals generally
acknowledge that their government is in the
wrong. The London Spectator showed
clearly in the last number received here that
Lord Derby was really attempting the abb
surdity Of making an act Of Parliament
override treaty, which is an international
agreement The Times and other journals
have taken similar ground, and it begins to
look as though public opinion in England
would presently be as unanimous as it is
here against the British assumptions.
A good deal of surprise has been expressed
here at the extremely illogical and untensble
ground assumed by the British government
in this extradition matter. But the English
have sort of superstitious reverence for an
act of Parliament They have a saying that
parliament can do anything except make
man woman" and this extradition case is
not the first instance, by any means, when
q British Minister has based his action upon
the "opinion of the law officers Of the
Crown" rs to the meaning of an act of Par
lament, without taking the trouble himself
to examine it. Thus it may be remembered
by many Of our readers among the legal pro-
fession that in the fishery question, some
years ago, the British government took its
position upon an opinion Of the Flaw officers
of the Crown" which opinion was based
upon an assumption that a certain provision
concerning headlands existed in the treaty
Of October 20. 1918, when, in fact, it was
shown by the United States that no such
provision or clause was found in that treaty;
and, after interminable arguments, the Eng
ish had to give up the point. Again, in the
case Of the Alabama's escape, the British
Ministers Of that day sought shelter behind
q plea that they waited, before acting upon
the opinion Of their law officers that this
opinion was delayed and that pending its
reception by the Foreign Office the Alabama
escaped; the claim being then that without
this "opinion" the government could not
act.
And now, in this Winslow case, the Brit
ish Attorney General advises the Ministry
not only that IN act of Parliament overrules
treaties, which is absurd and contrary to all
public law and to the very nature of
treaty, which is q mutual agreement between
two nations but he goes further and asserts
that q certain act of Parliament overrules a
treaty with the United States, when, in fact,
a clause in that very act makes express and
explicit reservation of the stipulations of the
treaty! And British Minister, who ought
at least to have taken the trouble to read the
act of Parliament and the treaty before
writing his despatch, gravely accepts this
'sopinion" for his diplomatic guidance!
Z OF course argument is impossible on such
grounds and we trust Secretary Fish has,
in the despatch now on its way to London,
demanded specific answer--yes or no-to
our demand for the extradition of Winslow.
If Great Britain does not mean to observe
her treaty obligations we ought to know it |;
if she does then there should be no
necessity for further argument, for the case
is too plain.