Year: 1876




up an excitement by little innocent by
play regarding their American relations.
Hence his singular and unprecedented
course toward the United States in the ex-
tradition cases, and his domineering man.
ner toward the Government of Peru in
reference to the release of certain British
subjects. However this may be, the facI
remains that he has in the most undiplo-
matte manner assented to the most fragrant
. infraction of the treaty obligations ofGreat


Britain TO the United States. Whether his
rotive is an emhroilmentwith this country
as relief from greater delinquencies in his
management of Eastern. or Continental
affairs it matters not, but the Government
of the United States is bound to deal with
the facts in the case as they stand upon the
record. 1t is bound to protect the honor
of the country and repel all insults to its
people, regardless of the motives which
may have actusted the sggressor.


In order that all may see precisely how
we stand upon this question Of extradition
the text of the article signed by Daniel
Webster and Lord Ashburton in 1912 is
here reproduced:


"AsHBURToN TREATY, ARTICLE x, 1912, Ex-


TRADITION.


at is agreed that the United States and
Her Britannia Majesty shall, upon mutual
requisition by them, or their ministers, officers
or authorities, respectively made, deliver up to
justice all persons who, being charged with the
crime of murder, or assault with intent to
commit murder or piracy, or arson, or robbery
or forger , or the utterance of forged paper
committed in the jurisdiction of either, shall
seek an asylum or shall be found within the
territories Of the other: Provided, that this
shall only be done upon such evidence of
criminality as, according to the laws of the
place where the fugitive or person so charged
shall be found, would justify his apprehen-
sion and commitment for trial If the crime
or offense had been there committed; and the
respective judges and other magistrates of the
two Governments shall have power, jurisdic-
tion and authority, upon complaint made
upon oath, to issue q warrant for the appre-
heusion Of the fugitive or person SO charged,
that he may be brought before such judges or
other magistrates respectively, TO the end that
the evidence of criminslity may be heard and
considered; and If on such hearing the eyi-
dence be deemed sufficient to sustain the
charge, 1t shall be the duty Of the examining
judge or magistrate to certify the same to the
proper executive authority, that a warrant
may issue for the surrender Of such fugitive.
The expense Of such apprehension and deliv-
cry shall be borne and betrayed by the party
who makes the requisition and receives the
fugitive.


continue in force until one or the other of the
parties shall signify Its wish to terminate it,
and no longer"


There can be no question in the mind
of any intelligent reader as to the meaning
of the foregoing article y. If there were,
the consistent and uniform practice under
it during the period from 1912 to 1876
should furnish sufficiently clear and en-
phatic Interpretation. The first case of
difference or complaint that has arisen
under it is that of Winslow, demanded by
our Government to be given up upon the
crime of forgery. He has been released,
not upon the pretense of innocence of the
crime upon which his surrender was de-
manded, and not because Great Britain
had 'tsignified its wish to terminate" the
treaty, but simply because this Govern
ment declined to travel out Of the usual





should not be tried in this jurisdiction for
any other crime than the one for which he
was eItradIted. There is not q word of
this in the treaty. On the contrary, it was
shown that in Great Britain and Canada
cases had occurred under the treaty in
which such trials had been had, while
rarely, if ever, had any such occurred in
this country. The pretense was that the
act of Parliament Of 1870 interdicted the
delivery of criminals without such assur.
snces. But it was shown that in that very
act the treaty Of 1912 with the United
States was excepted in terms. And, fur
thermore, if such had not been the case, a
simple act of Parliament could not release
Great Britain from its international COM
pacts with US. If that act were binding
upon the British Government in its execu-
lion Of its treaty stipulations, its first duty
10 this Government was to have so stated
upon the passage of the act, and it should
then also have served the requisite notice
for the termination of article Y. But this
course was not pursued. On the contrary,
3 number Of criminals were surrendered to
US subsequent to the passage OF that act
without any mention of the provisions
alluded to or any request for such guaran-
tees.


Under these circumstances, why should
the Earl of Derby refuse to deliver Wins
low on suspicion, and on suspicion only,
that we might do exactly what Great
Britain had done-try him for a crime
other than the one upon which he was ex-
tradited? Why did he not surrender
HiHslow and then serve the noticeH Why
did he refuse to obey the treaty first, and
under that menace ask for new conditions?
If he will not conform TO one treaty, what
guaranty have we that he will to new
One3 How do we know when treating
with such Powers that a new act of Par
lament will Rot be concocted as an excuse
for the iufraction Of other and more i'm
portant treaties? As we have heretofore
had occasion to say, the point now at issue
between US and GreIt Britain is no longer
one of the release of Winslow or Gray or
Brent, or of any other criminals, but it is,
what constitutes amicable relations and
practical comfy among friendly nationsl


The course pursued by Earl Derby in
his matter seems to have been that of the
bully and the trickster. 1t wears the ap-
Dearance Of desire to pick quarrel. 1t
Ippears to have been case of deliberate
md premeditated insult with design to
bully US into yielding points outside of the
,ecord. II casts an unworthy suspicion
lpon our integrity as nation, and impu-
lently declares in effect that if we do not
ike to obey the behests of Britain and
give the additional guarantees, the treaty
hall be outraged, disobeyed, set at naught.
such conduct when il would have been
easy TO have indicated in civil,
courteous and proper manner desire to
discontinue the extradition article of the
reaty, is to our mind susceptible of but
me interpretation-and that is desire for
rupture Of friendly diplomatic relations |
With the United States. This conduc. |