New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-07-16
FyTR1DTTION WITH ENGLAND.

The important announcement Is mlue HUH
London that a new extraditiOn treaty has been
signed between Great Britain and the unlted
States. No details are mentioned beyond the
vague statement that provision is made for the
surrender of dynamite miscreants. Inc us
closures are evidently premature, and nave APP
parently caused intense irritation at the Amer
lean Legation in London. In Government
circles at Washington the London rlmor Is
discussed evasivtly. The State Department.
officials declare that no treaty having the aiiegeo
dynamite clauses has been signed but admit
flat there is some basis for the rumors, since
the American Minister has prepared daft OF
a new extmdltion treaty. Mr.. Phelps would
NOT have ventured to submit this draft to the
British Foreign Office before sending it to
Washington. unless he had received positive
assurances of the policy of the State Department.
II is evident from the cable dispatches that
informal communications on TINS sun]cct h'iVe
been exchanged between the two Governments
and that the text of a proposed treaty mas oech
laid before the British Foreign Once IL Is
safe to conclude, therefore, that the Administra-
tion has opened negotiations for new extra
dition treaty.
This lisa field of labor upon which we hope the
Administration has entered. The Convention OF
1910 nbe enlargement of the Jay Treaty of
l79p was the first of long series OF extrauluoi
conventions negotiated by the United States.
Being the earliest, it is the most detective us
warrants and provisions are the least explicit ;
and il contains the shortest list OF crimes 1ol
which fugitives can be surrendered. 1he ten
dency of American extradition practice has been
IN increase the number of offences for which
the return of criminals may be asked; to ex-
clude political offences by formal provision
in the convention and to restrict prosecution
TO the specific crime for which extradition Is
demanded. In these respects the Treaty of
1S42s greatly inferior to the treaties con-
cluded between the United States and the
South American States, and also with secon-
dary European Powers, like Belgium Certainly
this ought not to be so. The treaty regulating
the repression of crime between the two great
sections of the English-speaklng world ought
to be the most stringent and the most explicit
of this series of conventions
Believing that the time has come when neeo-
tjations between the two Governments on thls
subject should be opened, we welcome the ue-
claration of the British Foreign Office that dell
mite action has already been taken respecting
the revision of the Extradition law. Inc All
ministration will confer great benefits upon the
country. if 1t succeeds in negotiating sound
and satisfactory extradition treaty modelled
after the treaty concluded with Belgium. Let
us be more explicit. The list of seven crimes
designated in the Treaty Of 1S42 should be
enlarged so as to include enlightenment, coun-
terfetlng, burglary, rape and other crimes en-
braced in the most recent treaties. There
should be at least fifteen extraditabc offences.
Then there should be an explicit declaration III
the treaty that the fugitive surrendered can
only be tried and punished for the crime ioI
which his cxtradition is asked. This was the
principle, it is true, on which the British For
eigr Office laid stress in refusing to surrender
Winslow. 1t has been affirmed however, by
the latest decisions OF the American courts and
has been recognized in treaties recently Iego-
tiated Ii ought to he embodied in the treaty
itself Firaly, political offences should be eX-
pressly excluded in the treaty as they are IL
the extraditOn practice of both countries.