Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-05-15
EXTRADiTION.
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY WHICH
Pits A NEW IIGHT ON THE MATTER.

AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY WHICH
PUTS A NEW LIGHT ON THE MATTER.
WASHINGTON, May 12-The Tribune cor
respondent telegraphs as follows in reg ard 10
the question OF extradiiion: II the extra
dltion of Sheridan and Walsh should be de-
handed for the murder OF Cavendish and
Burke, and their cours-l should set up the
claim that this was a political crime, they
would BIS confronted with one piece OF I'M
portan. evidences TO which public attention
has not been directed, and which seems TO
show the interpretations placed upon the ex-
tradition section of the Ashburton treaty by
those who framed it. When the treaty was
trar snitted TO the Senate by President Ty-
Ter, it was accompanied with an explans-
tory message, written by Mr.. Webster, then
Secretary of State. This explained the ne
cessity for some measure for mutual rem
dition Of criminals, in view of the fact that
the British provinces of North America are
separated from the States OF the Union by
a line of several thousand miles, across
which passage was always easy. The mes-
sage then says:
The article on the subject in the proposed
treaty is carefully confined to such otenses as all
mankind agree to regard as heinous and destruc-
tive of the security OF life and property In TINS
careful and specific enumeration OF crimes, the
object has been to exclude all political onenses or
criminal charges arising fro n wars or intestine
commotions Treason, suspicion of treason, lioels,
desertion from military service and other oHenses
of similar character are excluded.
This official interpretation of the section
under which Sheridan and Walsh will be
extradited, il at all, made by the President,
in whose name the treaty was concluded,
and the Secretary of Stale who conducted
the negotiations, certainly raises the strong
est presumption, if it does not amount 10
proof, that they would promptly have re-
jected the idea that such murder as that OF
Cavendish and Burke could be regarded as
q political offense. Mr.. Webster went as far
down The list of political offsnses ss libels
and assertions, bsfore chasing the rem ainder
together as others. 1t is hardly to be sup
posed that if he had regarded murder and
assassination as political ofiensea, he would
not have thought it more important TO men,
ton these than the minor crimes alluded to.
In the dealings of this government with
Great Britain, whatever is done must be as
M after of International obligation under the
treaty, and the action must be governed
strictly by its terms. Sheridan and Walsh
cannot be surrendered for conspiracy TO muir
der; but if evidence upon charge OF murder
can be made out against them, upon which
they will be held for trial here, il is absurd
to suppose that their surrender will be de-
MED by this government on the ground that
the offsnse Of which they are accused is po-
itical in its nature.
A parallel might be drawn between the
cases of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Lin
coin, which would also tend to show how
weak the claim-a political offense-is. Lin
coin was shot when the war was seen to be
closing, aud with his mind full OF msgnsni-
nous projects toward the Southern people.
Cavendish was killed two days after his APP
pointment asAchief secretary for Ireland.
The suspects had been let out Of prison.
The coercion act had been practically sban-
denA.s and the promise had been given that
the land act should be modified. He was
about TO enter upon the execution of policy
of Cancellation, just as Lincoln was about to
begin a mild and fraternal plan for the re-
construction of the Union. But the United
States had been rent almost asunder by
civil war between great armies. Ireland was
not wholly peaceful, still i. was at peace. So
much the lees can the murder of Cayendish
be called political offense.