The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-03-16
EXTRADITION.

1t would seem from recent published
statements of the British minister of for
eign affairs, that Great Britain has not
abated anything from her cloim that the
extraditioRtreaty, 80 far &C her obligations
under it are concerned, Is limited by the
law of parliament. 1t will be remembered
that, in the first instance, extradition was
refused Window without guaranty that
he should be tried for no other offense than
that for which his extradition was claimed.
Great Britain based her refusal upon the
ground that her local law prohibited a sur
render except upon this condition, and that
one Lawrence had been extradited for
forgery but the United States courts had
indictet and were proposing to try him for
another ana different offerse, and one
not cove led by the treaty. The United
State, subsequently,, receded from its po-
sition in the Lawrence case, and Great
Britain then proposed to surrender crimi-
nails without requiring guaranty, but
Lord Derby announces that the British
government will do 80 relying upon the
honor of the United States to act as if the
guaranty had been given, and that in case
another course is taken Great Britain will
consider the treaty at an end
We have never had any doubt of the
correctness of the British position-that
law passed by parliament subsequent to the
negotiation of treaty was of binding force
end, pro tdnto, abrogated the treaty. In
deed, this is the American doctrine, the el-
preme court of the United States having
decided that treaty may be abrogated by
act of congress and that where a treaty and
law of congress conflict the one OF the
latest date governs-that is, IL the law was
enacted subsequent to the treaty, then the
law was of force anything contained in the
neaty to the contrary Notwithstanding, and
ciee Uersa. Great Britain holding to this
doctrine and, therefore, liable at any time
to abrogate the treaty pro tanto, would it
not be wise for the administration at once
TO enter W n the negotiation of a new
treaty. Tx people of Vermont are par
ticularly int ested in this matter from the
proximity of the state to Canada which, in
case of the abrogation of the treaty, in
whole or in part, would make Canada a
safe Asylum for our criminals,and Vermont
place Of refuge for Canada law breakers.
The United States, in its treaty with
Spain, virtually conceded the justice of the
claim of Great Britain, by incorporating in
the treaty clause limiting the right of
trial of persons. extradted to offenses ooy-
cred by the treaty. This, to be sure, is
somewhat broader tLan The claim OF Great
Britain, bat Is, in effect, the same, as the
law of parliamen. vas primarily designed
to prevent person being extradited, and
then tried, convicted and punished for q
politica, offense. The negotiation of an
extradition treaty comedies the Ijuslice of
surrendcring for trial criminals charged
with certain.specifled offenres, and mega
tives all claim TO demand the surrender of
person charged with offenses others than
those named! In the treaty. Our treaty
with Spain was 0 broad, liberal, just one,
aud we trust that the administration will,
at an early day, settle this still open ques-
tlon by the negotiation of similar one
with Great Britain. Such treaty would
be just and honorable to both countries
and that Is al! that can DO asked.