The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-09-27
British Warrants Running In the
United States.

Isit q fact that under the existing ar
rangements OF international extradition
between Great Britain and the United
States, British warrant issued in London
against an American citizen, actually In
this country when the warrant is issued. on
| q charge of having committed not an ascer-
tanned. but an alleged offence against Brit
ish law. can be enforced against such an
American citizen in this country by an
American Commissioner. on a Geographic
demand from London. with no examination
before an American tribunal Of the evidence
on which that British warrant was granted
and OF the circumstances in which 1t was
granted
In his Open Letter to Lord CoLERIDaE.
already dealt with in these columns,
Mr.. w. II. HUR1BERT clearly and posi-
lively says that this Is fact. or at least
that he was emphatically advised by Amer
lean counsel of eminence. we'll known in
New York. that under modification OF
our extradition treaty with Great Britain,
which was arranged by Mr.. BLAINE during
his last term OF Office in the State Depart
ment. this must be assumed to be fact"
He was told In terms that "even il over
whelming proof could be produced that he
was In New York when he was said to have
committed an extraditable offence in Lon
don. the testimony could not be accepted by
O Federal court as ground for refusing to
recognize the warrant" Put into plain
English. this is simply to say that under Mr..
BLAINE's arrangement British warrant
Is allowed to run against an American cti-
zen In America as freely as it runs against
o British subject In England: and more free
ly, we take It, than under Mr.. GLADsToNE's
scheme of home rule for Ireland any Brit
ish warrant will be allowed by the Irish
Government to run in Ireland.
We have already pointed out in The Sun
that no action taken by any authority in the
United States in accordance with this extra
ordinary reading of our international ar
rangements with Great Britain has yet
come under consideration in the Suprem,
Court of the United States. But it does not
follow from this that no such action can
have been taken. or may be taken. by some
ill-advised or over-zealous authority In the
United States. And there seems to be no
good reason why the Intervention Of the
Supreme Court should be made necessary in
order to put such action finally and abso-
lutely out OF the range OF things possible.
1t Is quite certain that no warrant issued
by an American magistrate for the arrest
OF British subject can run in this fash
ion under the flag OF Great Britain. In
any case involving British subject found
in England 1t Is quite certain that the su-
preme political authority OF the United
States would be required to produce and
submit to thorough examination before a
British tribunal all the evidence on which
any American warrant for the arrest OF
that British subject had been originally
granted. and this with no reference what
ever to the gravity OF the alleged offence.
In the case of e French citizen. FRANCOIS.
charged during the past winter under a
French warrant. with the murder OF sun
dry persons In Paris by a dynamite explo-
sion. the French Ambassador In London
was obliged to produce before a British
magistrate. and to submit for careful and
thorough examination. all the particulars
OF all the evidence on which the charge had
originally been made against FRANCOIS In
France. Able counsel were employed by
the French Government and on behalf OF
FRANCOIS. The preliminary examination
assumed the proportions Of an international
case. 1t was interrupted and delayed again
and again to enable the French Government
to comply with the demands OF the English
counsel OF FRANCOIS: and when the extradi-
ton was finally accorded. after several
weeks. by the magistrate. the case was car
ried up on appeal before the Queens Bench.
AS the expense of any legal proceedings in
London is moderately estimated by English |