River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1898-12-08
orR ExTRApITIoN LAWS.


The Interpretation Of certain provisions
Of the extraditioa convention Of Deem
bcr II, 1861, has been at various times the
occasion OF controversy with the govern
ment Of Mexico. An acute difference arose
in the case Of the Mexican demand for the
delivery Of Jesus Guerrero, who. having
led maraudinE expedition near the border
with the proclaimed purpose Of initiating
an instruction against President Diaz
escaped into Texas. Extradition was re fused
on the ground that the alleged offense was
political In its character, ana therefor
came within the treaty prOVisO Of 9lE-
surrender The Mexican contention was
that the execution only related 10 pure y
political omeEseS, and that, as Guerrero s
acts were admiXed with the common crime
Of murder, arson, kidnapping AID robbery
the option Of rondeivery became void, a
position which this government was unable
10 admit In view Of The received interra-
ti0uaI doctrine ard practice In the mat
ter The Mexican government, 10 view oi
mis-. gave notice January a. 1888 OF the
termination Of the convention, TO take ef-
feet ~ months from that date, at the same
vention, toward which negotiations are on
foot
In this relation, may refer 70 the neces
gitv of some amendment Of our existing
evtradition statue. 1t is a common stip-
ulation Of such treaties that neither party
shall be bound 70 give up IT'S own citizens
with the added prOvisO IN one Of our
treaties that with Japan that IL may suT-
render II IL see fit 1t IS held 10 this country
hy an almost Uniform course Of decisions
that where a treaty negatives the Obl+ga-
rfou to surrender the president is not in
vested with legal authority 20 act. The
ccuferment to such authority would De ir
the line Of that sound morality which
rlrinks from affOrding secure asylum tC
the author Of a hcinous crime Again
statutory provision might be well made fOl
" Rat is styled eXtradition by way Of tran
SIT whereby a fugitive surrendered by one
foreign government to another may be con-
Veyed across the territory or the United
states to the Jurisdiction Cf the demanding
state. A recommendation in this behalf
made In tie presidents message Of le6t
was not acted upon; The matter is pre-
TEe Drobier7 ~ the Mexican free zone
fae been often discussed with regard u u
nee i,a F staes son n an sle e
tarsfvp and thinlv guarded land border
The effort made by the joint resolution 81
March !, 1905, 70 remedy the ouse charged
By suspepding the privilege OF Tree tfeIs-
narration Ia bCrd across the territory Of the
tinted states to Mexico failed Cf E1od re-
suit as Is stated in report No, i92 q the
house Of representatives., submitted IN the
last session. March j.. 1898. As the ques-
ton is one TO be conveniently met by wise
concurrent legislation OF the two countries
looking 70 the protection OF the revenues
by harmonious measures operating equal
~ on either side Of the boundary, rather
than by conventional arrangements, J. sug-
gest that congress consider the advisabiity
OF authorizing and inviting a conference Of
representatives Of the treasury depart
rnents Of the United States and Mexico %
consider the subject In all its complex bear
Ings. and make report with pertinent rec
concentrations TO the respective govern
ments for the Information and the coHsla-
Grafton Of thei rcongress
Mexican Water Boundary.
The Mexican water boundary comm issicn
has adjusted all matters submitted TO d
10 the satisfaction OF both govern N eE IS,
save IN three important cases; that q the
ChaualzaI at FL Paso, Tex, where inc Two
com u1fssiouers failed 10 agree and WneFe-
III FOR this case Only, this government mas
rlrcuosed to Mexico the addition OF MIRO
member: the proposed elimination OF "hat