« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
of a Treaty could not be altered except by mutual consent. Indeed, I hardly thought it was necessary that the United States' Government should look narrowly into the interpretation of our Act; it was our business to see that the Treaty was in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and the United States could always insist that the stipulations of the Treaty should be carried out.
With regard to the suggestion which he had recently so often made that a surrendered criminal might be tried not only for the crime for which he was surrendered, but for any of and all the other crimes contained in the Extradition Treaty, I said that such a stipulation would not be in accordance with the Act. Mr. Fish said that it was certainly the wish of his Government to make such an agreement, and that he could not see what possible objection there could be to it, or what harm it could do the interests of justice or the rights of society. He cited the instances which he had already referred to in his despatch of the 22nd of May to Colonel Hoffman with regard to murder and manslaughter, or assault with intent to commit murder, and murder. But although Mr. Fish urged the expediency of such an agreement, he did not say, and evidently purposely avoided saying, that the United States' Government would refuse to conclude a Treaty except with such a condition.
Similar remarks were made with regard to the surrender of criminals for political crimes. He argued that it would be quite sufficient that each country should engage that no surrendered criminal should be tried for a political crime. He urged that, although it might not be well to make such a stipulation with some other nations, no harm could come of it between Great Britain and the United States, whose laws and feelings upon the subject are so much alike. And even putting those feelings out of the question, both of them would be so desirous of preserving the Treaty that each would be careful not to violate an agreement upon that subject.
Our conversation was much longer than I have been able to report to your Lordship, but the impression left upon my mind was that the United States' Government really desires to make a new Treaty; that it feels the necessity; and that great pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government by the people, who seem generally to feel that to be without an Extradition Treaty would be a great misfortune.
The Earl of Derby.
The Earl of Derby to Mr. Pierrepont.
Foreign Office, July 15, 1876. WITH reference to the letter I had the honour of addressing to
Colonel Hoffman on the 30th ultimo, I have the honour to renew formally the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the negotiation of a new and extended Extradition Treaty.
Requesting to be favoured with an intimation whether you have. received authority from your Government to undertake such a negotiation, I have, &c., E. Pierrepont, Esq.
Mr. Pierrepont to the Earl of Derby.-(Received July 18.) MY LORD, Legation of the United States, London, July 16, 1876.
WITH reference to the letter of your Lordship dated the 15th instant, and to-day received, relating to the negotiation of an Extradition Treaty, I have the honour to state that, until further instructions from my Government, I do not feel authorized to undertake such negotiation. I have, &c.,
The Earl of Derby.
The Earl of Derby to Sir E. Thornton.
Foreign Office, July 19, 1876. THE United States' Minister called upon me this afternoon, and, after premising that he had not been instructed to make any overtures for the conclusion of a new Treaty of Extradition between this country and the United States, he asked, as a personal inquiry from himself, whether Her Majesty's Government had any feeling as regards the place at which negotiations for such a Treaty should be carried on, whether they had any desire that the matter should be discussed in London in preference to Washington, or vice versâ.
It seemed possible, from Mr. Pierrepont putting such a question, that Mr. Fish might himself entertain some preference in regard to this point, and it did not appear to me to be one on which to raise any difficulty.
I therefore at once assured Mr. Pierrepont that we had no feeling whatever on the subject; that if the United States' Government thought it more convenient that the negotiations, the speedy initiation of which seemed so desirable for both countries, should be carried on in London, I had no doubt that he and I would be able to discuss the matter thoroughly and satisfactorily. If, on the other hand, Mr. Fish had a preference for Washington, Her Majesty's Government would be equally satisfied to leave the negotiation in your hands. I am, &c.,
Sir E. Thornton.
Mr. Pierrepont to the Earl of Derby.-(Received July 22.)
DEAR LORD DERBY,
REFERRING to our conversation about the place to conduct negotiations upon the subject of extradition, and, to avoid misunderstanding, I have to say that Mr. Fish desires these negotiations to be conducted at Washington. I have, &c., The Earl of Derby.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont.-(Communicated to the Earl of Derby, August 23.)
Department of State, Washington, August 5, 1876. MR. HOFFMAN's despatch of the 3rd of July forwarded to the Department a copy of Lord Derby's note to him dated the 30th of June, in which he did me the honour to take into consideration, and to offer a reply to mine to Mr. Hoffman under date of the 22nd May, in regard to the Extradition question.
Subsequent to the date of this instruction to Mr. Hoffman of the 22nd May, and prior to the date of his Lordship's reply, Her Majesty's Government had discharged from custody the fugitives whose surrender had been demanded of Great Britain by the United States, with all the requirements of the Treaty between the two Governments, providing for the extradition of fugitive criminals.
This act of Her Majesty's Government called for the decision of the President of the United States, which was announced in his Message to Congress of the 20th of June last, of which you have been given a copy, wherein he stated that the position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, cannot but be regarded as the abrogation and annulment of the Article of the Treaty on Extradition; that, under the circumstances, it would not, in his judgment, comport with the dignity or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from that Government under the Treaty.
The general question has, therefore, for the present at least, and while the British Government adheres to the position it has taken, become an abstract one, and this Government has no desire, under such circumstances, to prolong a discussion which does not promise to lead to any good result.
I deem it proper, however, to correct an error of fact into which his Lordship appears to have fallen.
In my instruction of the 24th of May, alluding to a statement of the Home Secretary that no question had been raised by him until he was satisfied that Lawrence had been indicted, though not
arraigned, for smuggling, I stated that the indictment against Lawrence for smuggling was found some time before any proceedings were taken for his extradition.
In his reply thereto, Lord Derby now states, " This may be so, but Lawrence was arrested and held to bail on this indictment for smuggling after his extradition."
After a careful examination of the question, and upon the authority of a report from the officer particularly charged with the prosecution of Lawrence, which entirely agrees with the information in the possession of the Department of State, it may be stated that since Lawrence arrived in the United States in custody, upon the proceedings taken in London for his extradition, he has not been arrested, has not given bail, and has not been arraigned or called upon to plead to the charge of smuggling, nor has he been arrested, arraigned, or called upon to plead to any indictment, or to any charge whatever, not based upon the particular charge of forgery upon which he was surrendered.
Bail was fixed by the Court upon a single indictment based on the forgery on which he was extradited, which was never offered, and to this indictment based on this forgery Lawrence pleaded guilty on the 24th of June.
This plea being entered, he was admitted to bail, and has since been at large, pending sentence.
Some error has also arisen in reference to the statement that I informed Sir Edward Thornton that, although Lawrence had not been arraigned for any crime other than that for which he was given up, he had given bail to appear for other crimes.
The accomplished Minister of Great Britain must have misunderstood what was said on this point, as Lawrence prior to his plea of guilty on the charge for which he was surrendered, and at the date of the alleged conversation, had never given bail upon any charge whatever.
Believing it important that no mistake of fact should exist as to these proceedings, you will, with Lord Derby's permission, leave with him a copy of this instruction. I am, &c.,
E. Pierrepont, Esq.
The Earl of Derby to Sir E. Thornton.
Foreign Office, August 19, 1876. HER Majesty's Government have had under their careful consideration the question of the renewal of the negotiations for the conclusion of a new Extradition Treaty between this country and the United States, which were suspended in June 1874; and I have to request that you will assure Mr. Fish of the desire of Her Majesty's
Government to conclude a new Extradition Treaty with the United
The Earl of Derby to Sir E. Thornton. Foreign Office, October 14, 1876. I HAVE to state to you that Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the very serious inconvenience and great encouragement to crime which would arise from a continued suspension of the extradition of criminals between the] British dominions and the United States, have determined to instruct you to inform Mr. Fish that, as a temporary measure, until a new Extradition Treaty can be concluded, they will be prepared to put in force all powers vested in them for the surrender of accused persons to the Government of the United States, under the Treaty of 1842, without asking for any engagement as to such persons not being tried in the United States for other than the offence for which extradition has been demanded.
It is, however, to be borne in mind that each Government has the right laid down in Article XI of the Treaty of 1842, which provides that Article X shall continue in force until one or the other of the Parties shall signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer.
You will address a note to Mr. Fish in the sense of this
Sir E. Thornton.
The Earl of Derby to Sir E. Thornton. Foreign Office, October 14, 1876. WITH reference to my despatch of this day's date, respecting the temporary arrangement which Her Majesty's Government are willing to make for the continued surrender of criminals under Article X of the Treaty of 1842, I have to observe that Her Majesty's Government can only undertake to carry this out so long as no attempt is made in the United States to try a person thus surrendered for any other than the offence for which the extradition was demanded. Should such an attempt be made, Her Majesty's Government will feel compelled at once to terminate Article X of the Treaty.
Her Majesty's Government understand that, as a matter of fact, no such additional crime is charged or likely to be charged against Winslow, Brent, or Gray.
The United States' Government are already aware, from the correspondence that has taken place, that the powers of the Govern ment of Her Majesty as an executive authority may be found, when the construction of the Act of 1870 is raised before the Courts of