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

manded. One cannot be extradited except
on evidence of criminslity which, by the
Law of the place where he is found, viii
justify his being held to answer. In 1917
England, by legislation, declared that she
would not surrender criminals unless 1t
appeared that the country demanding, by
law or agreement had provided for the
trial of the offender for the crime for
which his return was asked. The United
States has never consented to this stipula-
ton. but the Courts referred to have de-
cided, in brief, that as the very object and
purpose of the treaty is to secure the re-
turn of offenders for a particular crime
laid against them, they caa be tried for no
other thsn that set forth in the application
for the return and further, that if the
attempt is made to prosecute for other
crime. the Court will hear the criminals
interposed plea to the jurisdiction of the
Court-thas it has not the right to try
him, because the charge laid is Lot that
for which he was exsradited This ruling
being accepted as the true standard, will go
far toward encouraging nations to enlarge
the schedule on which extradition may be
had. 1t assures the world that the United
States Government will keep faith that
the safeguard against prosecution for po-
litical offenses shall not be violated that
the right of the surrendering Gov.
eminent to judge of the adequacy of
the proofs submitted to maintain
the charge for extradition will not
be infringed that the necessity for
legislation on the question is removed. Ex-
tradition treaty obligations have not always
been respected by us. Notable is the case
of Miller, cited by Sedgwick. Miller, an
escape from Pennsylvania prison, was re-
turned from Canada and put to serving out
sentence for burglary, though extradited
for an assault to murder, for which he was
never indicted. The article of Mr.. Sedg.
wick goes very little further than to recite
the leading cases and approve the ruling of
Judge Hoffman, and to fortify it by
processes of reasoning. But these other
considerations are suggested to US, and we
csnnot but believe that the schedule of Of
lenses recognized between England and the
United States will be greatly enlarged.
And why should they not be? Neither
country has any interest in being made the
asylum for the outlaws of the other. Elk.
actly what are political offenses must by
treaty be more clearly defined, not by the
negation arising out of affirmative def
milton of crimes for which extradition may
be asked, as is the case with the Ashbur-
ton treaty, but by distinct and affirmative
description. No one will ever desire the
right of asylum for political offenders to be
violated neither nation will ask that
political offenders shall be extradited.
But it must be determined, for
instance, whether the dynamite con.
spirator in New York or London, who
makes bombs and uses them to blow up
buildings and destroy life in London or
New York, is political offender simply
because he so declares himself, or is, in
fact, a murderer-an assassin. There
would seem to be no reason why there
should be between our Government and
Mexico recognition of petit larceny on the
frontier, while between England and the
United States assault to murder is the least
crime for which extradition may be had.
With France we have, by treaty, recogni-
ton of thirteen crimes, and one is a check
upon embezzlement by public officers with
Italy, Nicaragua and the Swiss Confedera.
ton fourteen, with Venezuela, Sweden and
Norway fifteen, and with Mexico twelve,
with inclusion Of others in general defini.
tions. The tendency is to enlargement of
these schedules, and we believe that the
public mind is surely and steadily ap-
preaching that position, in all civilized
countries, which will by comfy of interest
make it all but useless for offenders under
the greater part of the leading criminal
codes to fee from justice in one country to
the shelter of another.