The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-07-02
END or tn. E.tr.aisson Controversy.

borne, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen and
Sir Vernon Harcourt, has been sitting IN
England for considerable number OF
mouths to consider the effect and meaning
of laws and treaties relating to the extra
dition of criminals. 1t was appointed
in August of 1877, nearly year ago,
the occasion being the long contin-
ued and inconyenent dispute between
the governments of the United States
and Great Britain concerning the sur
render of certain persons charged with ex-
| traditable offences, which surrender, 1t
will be remembered, was demanded by our
government under the Ashburton Treaty
| and refused by the British government on
the ground that British statutes confiicted
| with our demands, and that they were
bound to obey their statutes, the clear pro-
visions of the treaty to the contrary not
withstanding.
| The British statute was held to require
| from us n distinct engagement that
criminal surrendered to us should be tried
| only for the crime for which extradition was
! granted Our government had not offered
| actually to try any surrendered person for
other crimes but the British Minister OF
Foreign Affairs pretended that it was In
tended to try one Lawrence here for offences
other than that for which he was given up
to us, and he thereupon refused to
give up Winslow and several others
who were demanded by us, until
Secretary Fish should engage that
Lawrence should not be so tried. The i'm
mediate result of this attempt by Lord
Derby to protect Lawrence was TINT Eng
land and Canada became places Of safe
refuge for n number of dangerous charac-
tiers who fed from justice in this country.
The Canadians discovered that Lord Derby's
policy made their border kind Of Alsatia;
forgers, swindlers. thieves of high and low
degree found a convenient asylum in the
Dominion as we'll as in England.
| The Canadians soon tired Of this condition
OF things. and in the middle ofLord Derby's
controversy gave notice in Washington
that they had o use for our criminals, and
were not inclined to protect them, but
would give them up without conditions on
our requisition, and we believe several
were actually surrendered to us while Mr..
Fish was vainly endeavoring to persuade the
Earl of Derby that he ought to observe the
Ashburton Treaty.
| In the end the part of the Ashburton
Treaty relating to extradition was formally
suspended, though several persons charged
with extraditable offences have been since
surrendered. Finally the commission of
which we have spoken above was appointed
to consider the whole subject, and this
body of able men has now, as we learn
from London, and as our correspondent
rs. W." elsewhere relates In semi
detail, made O report, in which the
views so ably set forth and maintained
by Secretary Fish are justified and adopted.
The commission advise that extradition
shall embrace all offences which it is the COM
mon interest of the two nations to suppress,
| excluding only those of political, religious
or merely local character and our CORE
spondent writes US, "They utterly repu-
date the contention of Lord Derby as to
the necessity of hampering the United
States, as he suggested, in respect to
the offences for which n surrendered
criminal shall be tried. They adopt the
better plan OF trusting to the honor Of each
government in the matter of political
offenders" and, looking to the negotiation
of a new extradition treaty, they recon-
mend arrests by telegraph and authority to
search premises in anticipation of actual
arrests. as is customary in local
affairs. In making these last recommen-
dations they go further, we will add,
than Secretary Fish. But in any case this
report to the British government paves the
way for new treaty, which our government
has been for some years ready to negotiate,
and the points of which were in fact drawn
up, we have heard, by Mr.. Fish, and SUBJ
mitted to Sir Edward Thornton on several
occasions, but rejected by the British gov
eminent on various excuses.
The official correspondence between Sec
rotary Fish and Lord Derby showed the
British position on this question to be un-
tenablc in every way, and Mr.. Fish, in fact,
so completely overthrow his opponents that
any one who reads the correspondence must
be amused ut the curious amount of ignor-
ance of the subject shown by the official per.
sons who prepared the papers which Lord
Derby signed. 1t was asserted on the Brit
ish side that they had always conformed to
their own Interpretation of the treaty but
Mr.. Fish showed that, on the contrary, per-
sons surrendered to the British authorities
had been tried for other offences than those
for which they were extradited; and this
not only in Canada, but in England--in
London. 1t was asserted by Lord Derby
that no European nation allowed of such
subsequent trials but Mr.. Fish showed that
to il in treaties. Lord Derby asserted that
such permission would lead to the surren-
der of persons on the plea of crminality
and their trial afterward for political Of