Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-04-30
TIE cuRIoslTIEs OF ExrRAplTrov,

No international topic has had more at
tention recently than that of extradition,
and few are possessed of more interest.
Primarily the consent Of one nation to the
transfer of fugitive from her own TO the
jurisdiction of another, is relaxation of
what we may term the privilege of asylum.
Nations assume that all persons seeking
the shelter of their flags are entitled to it,
not by inherent right, but because each
nation holds its laws to be ample for the
protection of all within its jurisdiction,
and that removal of a person therefrom
without his consent or by due process of
Law, is an Infringement of the local SOW
ereignty. 1t follows that the seizure for
one nation Of the citizen Of another can
only be legally accomplished by the con-
sent of the country having immediate
jurisdiction, and this consent is given
either by legislative enactment or by
treaty, and treaty is the usual method.
Nations do not assume to punish for
offenses not committed under the jurisdic-
ton and in violation of their own laws,
and hence there is no abstract obligation
on the part of one to return the fugitives
of another. By some doctors Of interna.
tional law it is held thst on grounds of com.
ity nations should recognize an obligation
for the return of all fugitives but because
governments differ in their political consti.
tuition, and fugitives are often sought that
they may be punished for political offenses,
and as nations are jealous OF all such de.
mands, the only obligations recognized
are those created by express agreement.
The intercourse between nations being re-
strained by mutual regulations arising cut
of custom, or out of specific written agree.
ments, the comfy of States never extends
to the exercise of any restraint over polit-
ical authority. for that is an attribute of
sovereignty and Independence and so it
comes about that treaties are based upon
the recognition of sovereignty and the mu-
tual admission of State independence and
equality and the mutual binding force of
the agreement upon each. There is just
now much thought being given to the sub
ject of the enlargement of these agreements
so far rs extradition is concerned. The
student OF modern history must be i'm
pressed with the fact that with the advance
of the nations along the pathway Of civ
ilization, there will be a broadening of
these compacts. But this must always be
at the expsnse of the privilege of asylum.
The fright of asylum" in its technical
sense is understood, so far as this
question is concerned, to apply to po.
litical offenders only. And here is
involved the consideration of now
far nations will ultimately consent TO po-
litical fugitives continuing, under their
protection, to plot against and make az.
saults upon friendly nations subject st
this particular time full of interest. The
recent paper of A. G. Sedgwick ia the
North american Repieic is timely. He holds
that the Interpretation of extradition
treaties has passed from the diplomatic to
the Judicial realm. and that the Ashburton
treaty has been settled by the decision of
the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and that
OF Judge Hoffman at San Francisco, in
The noted case of Watts, of the ship Gath.
erer. The tenth article of the Ashhnrtan
treaty of 1912 constitutes the extrsdition
agreement between Great Britain and the
United States. It specifies but seven of.
lenses for which fugitives may be de-