New-York tribune., 1903-06-23


pressy stipulates that fueitives from justice
shall neither be surrendered nor punished foI
crimes of a political character, and further tn1l
on the question whether crime IS OIL q P poIiI- -
ical character the decision of the government III
whose Jurisdiction the criminal is found must
be final II is pertinent also recall that after
the attempted assassination of the Third Napo-
leon in Paris by Orsini, by which large num-
ber OF victims were killed ana many more
manned the French Government suggested to
Great Britain the surrender or further provision
for the punishment of participants in this or
kindred plots who had found asylum in London,
and were in fact believed to have there orig
mated and perfected their consp1racIes; that
the British Government did not comply: and
that the Prime Minister who attempted to COM
ply, Lord Palmerston thereby driven from
office. 1t is equally pertinent to remember that
never, with the exceptions OF belSlun RUSSIA
and Luxemburg, until some time after this as
sassination at Buffalo,-never in fact until June
II. l9O2, did the United states have a treaty
for such surrender with any other nation, that
its Ministers had more than once been eau
toned against encouraging requests for such a
clause in negotiations for any treaty, and that
the only additional countries ii has such treaties
with to-day Brazil and Denmark At the
time. therefore, although we had already SUI
fered from two previous Presidential assass1na-
tious had not only made no agreement with
Great Britain, but we had never made an agree
Went with any nation OF the hrst rank (s@eNe
One) to return such a prisoner ourselves, 2nd
were in no position to demand right more
than we had stipulated to cOncede; WhlIe Great
Britain in some sort committed against
such return in the conspicuous case have
named. On the other hand, let always CRATE
fully remember that when there thought to
be some reason for imagining that the assassin
Of Abraham Lincoln might seek an asylum IN
England, our representative then at the Court
of St. James. Mr. Charles Francis Adams, was
able to report promptness and good will at the
Foreign Office in facilitating any application
that might be made for his surrender 1t is also
most gratifying to remember. that accom-
plished student of international Law, Professor
John Bassett. Moore. OF Columbia, remlnded US
in his Case of the SalvadOrean Refugees" that
in June, 1894, third of a century after the
Orsini case. the court of Queens Bench delv-
France a charged
explosion at the Cafe Very. holding that, in
order to constitute an offence Of a political
character, there must be two or more parties
in the State each seeking to impose the govern
ment of their own choice the other" and
that the offence must be committed by one side
or the other in pursuance Of that object.
OF course this last decision makes the extreme
case as I have stated it, of a possible refusal
to surrender the ASSASSIN of Mckinley quite be
yOnd all probabilities. Without a reasonable
doubt he would have been surrendered at the
earliest moment at which the requisite formal
tiles could have been concluded. But it would
have been act of sympathy and international
comfy due to the good will Of the British Gov
ernment of the day and its adherence Of an
atrocious crime and not TO the established law
and practice Of nations or consistent with any
uniform practice Of its own.
The state then. of international law at the
time Of our last Presidential assassination, the
tenoertootedness OF a part OF our own treaty
making power on the subject of extra 1itiOn are
such that II may be useful to seize the occasion
for reviewing our own actual attitude toward
the most startling and. in view of certain
tendencies Of the age. the most dangerous Of
modern crimes.
At the outset may take IL for granted I
think, that 1t is not consistent with the dignity
Of the United states to be dependent on mere
international comfy or on isolated decisions or
on natlonai sympathles or political currents at
the moment in the country from which It may
seek to reclaim such criminal As little is it
consistent with the justice Of the United States
that 1t should leave its attitude toward
a foreign call on it for the surrender of such a
criminal, to depend on the effect similar cir
might produce he n -F-. -.or,
OF its Administration then in power Lex
scTipta manet- This is too serious business to
be left to good understandings and prevailing
political currents. It surely ought to be en-
bedded, for any two lands between which such
a case can arise, in a written and solemn en-
eaSeInent which shall be for both of them the
supreme lawn fair weather or in foul In
times of cordiality or in times Of alienation.
II is only twenty years ago that the Chief
secretary for Ireland, the real ruler of that
land under the British sovereign, was assassl-
mated in Phoenix Park. Suppose one Of the men
the United States?-as one Of those thought to
be involved IN a subsequent plot did.-the per
son known for a time NO. l. and afterward
as otephen h lyman. Who does not know
what would have been the temper not merely
Of large classes of our population, but of many
!eaders IN Doth political parties, in view of the
feeling about Irish affairs then existing among
u.s. toward any attempt at his extraditiOn?
Who does not that the best intentions Of
the party in power here might have had q
chance at least to end. in such a case, Just as
the best Intentions of Lord Palu7erston did in
to leave. or encourage other nations to leave, at
the mercy Of such fuctuating circumstances
the punishment of crime which strikes at the
foundation Of organized government itself?
The exact state of our own treaty law on the
subject is this:
Practically every extradition treaty the United
States now has in force contains q clause which
stipulates that the provisions of the present
convention shall not be applied in any manner
to any crime or offence OF political character
Trivial variations in phraseOlogy occur in sew
eraI of the treaties. but nothing materially re-
stricting the meaning till we come 70 those
already alluded to with Belgium in 4SS- ana
with Luxembourg in 1888. There for the first
time, appeared an agreement that an attempt
against the life of the head Of a foreign govern
ment or any member Of his family.
comprising murder. assassina-
tion or poisoning, shall not be considered
political offence"
# took the second Presidential assassination
to bring US to that Even then we were dis
posed 10 draw back, and requests for similar
agreeTnent were set aside IN the case OF 'lTSeI
and more in7Dortant nations 1t took the third
Presidential assassination TO bring US, latA ana
reluctant. to the present conventions with Bra
I'll and Denmark That with Denmark IS OF
similar purport with the Belgian treaty That
with Brazil adds also to its exemption OF reads
Of Government the Governors OF states " iIA
England France Germany, Austria. oIalIL'
Italy Mexico. Chill, the Argentine Republic
with most of the world, in fact. we have no
such agreement but stand where We We're And
orr Department from the outset has held that
.'as a general rule there be no eXtraditior 70
a foreign State without treaty
Statesmen have not hesi-aIai to defend the
old position. according to their lights. Thus lr;
Jefferson. as Secretary of State. wrote in 1892
TO Minister'S
Most codes extend their definition Of treason to
acts not really against one cG1l[ ~ 1 LTy TG f lt
and acts against the expressions OF the Govern
more victims 10 the executioner than the former.
The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny
lated with the real are sufficiently punished by