The Indianapolis journal., 1889-12-19
THE NEW ExTRADIT1oN TREATY.

The new extradition treaty between
the United States and Great Britain is
now before the Senate, and will doubt
less be ratified by that body. Its rati-
fication will be an event of great inn
portance, and coming so early in the
present administration will be convinc-
ing proof of the intelligence and energy
with which the work has been prose-
cuted. Great credit is due to the Presi-
dent and Secretary of State for the set
tlement of this vexed question, and for
the negotiation, now practically COM
pleted, of treaty which will put an end
to the disgraceful state of things which
has so long existed under which Canada
has been safe refuge for American ras-
Gals.
The present extradition treaty with
Great Britain has been in force since
1S42. Under it the only crimes made ex-
traditable are murder, piracy, arson,
robbery and forgery. The list does not
include any of the forms of embezzle-
ment or breach of trust which have be-
come so common in recent years. An
attempt was made by this government
to make it cover these crimes, by assert
ing the right to try fugitive criminal on
another charge than that for which he
was surrendered, but this claim was re-
sisted by the British government. In 1875,
in the somewhat celebrated case of E. d.
Winslow, fugitive from the United
States charged with extensive forgeries,
when the United States demanded his
extradition, Lord Derby, then British
Foreign Secretary, asked Of the United
States guaranty, as a prerequisite to
the surrender of the fugitive, that he
should not be tried for any other offense
than the one specified in the extraditiOn
request, and for which extradition might
be granted. This gave rise to long
diplomatic correspondence, the United
States asserting and the British govern
ment denying the right under the treaty
to try fugitive for another crime than
that on which he was surrendered. The
correspondence led to no definite result
Winslow was not surrendered, and each
government maintained its position so
firmly that for some time the treaty
was practically abrOgated. Finally, at
the request of the British minister, it
again became operative, the old point Of
controversy being tacitly waived by both
governments. AS matter of fact, the
United States has not again asserted
the right to try fugitives forf any
other than the extradition crime, and
| the treaty has been held to apply. only
| to the crimes above named. In 1873 the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky held, Id
an able decision reviewing the entire
subject, that the British construction of
the treaty was correct; that a fugitive
could not be tried for any other crime
| than the extradition one, and cOnseT
quently that an attempt to hold for ens
bezzlement one Hawes, who had been
surrendered for forgery, was illegal!
For many years past this has been the
settled view. Asa result, the large class
of criminals guilty of embezzlement, de-
falcation, breach of trust, insurance
swindles, bank-wrecking, and thevari-
Gus forms of commercial swindling, es-
Gaping from one country to the other.
have been able to avoid arrest and defy
| pursuit. That this state of things
has been an encouragement to
crime and standing invita-
tion to fraud there can be no
doubt. For years past criminal lawyers
and their crooked clients have shaped
their practice with reference to the de-
fective treaty, and with distinct under
standing that the boundary line between
the United States and Canada was the
boundary line of justice. No doubt
many crimes have been deliberately
committed with this means of escape in
view, and thousands of rascals, by
means of it, have gone unpunished. Un-
der the new treaty there will be an end
of all this, and great gain for justice.
| The consummation of this treaty alone,
even if President HarrisOn's administra-
ton should not accomplish any other act
of Importance, will entitle it to public
| gratitude.