The Cour de Cassation accepted the doctrines laid down in this despatch, but in annulling the decree of the court below rested its judgment in great measure upon the special circumstances of the case. It stated as the grounds of the annulment, (1) that in case of a dispute between the public prosecutor and the accused as to whether the circumstances of his extradition implied a convention regulated by treaty between the two powers, there is ground for adjournment until the competent authority has decided the question. (2) That the court acts without authority if it decides that the giving up should involve the consequences of an extradition; especially if it founds its decision exclusively on documents coming from the foreign country. (3) That Renneçon, having consented to be sent to France before the completion of the formalities consequent upon a regular demand, could not complain of the non-observance of conditions applicable to cases of extradition; and (4) that the judge who holds an accused to be detained contrary to the provisions of the treaty cannot order him to be reconducted to the frontier, that right belonging to the executive power only.*

In the other case, that of Faure de Monginot, there was nothing in the special circumstances which rendered unnecessary a distinct decision of the main question. He was claimed from Belgium under the same treaty for complicity in fraudulent bankruptcy, and was regularly surrendered.

It being found by the chambre des mises * Aff. Renneçon; Dalloz, Jurisp. Gén., 1867, i. 281.

en accusation that there was no evidence against him upon the charge on which his surrender had been obtained, he was sent for trial before the tribunal correctionnel de la Seine for misdemeanour in embezzling and breach of trust.

Upon objection being made that the surrender had been granted for a different offence, the tribunal held that the stipulations of treaties were matters of international law, and decided that the accused should be taken to the frontier and set at liberty. On the 24th May 1867 the Cour Impériale de Paris affirmed this judgment; there being no question as to the facts. But the prisoner was not so fortunate as Renneçon, for the decision was not carried into effect. An appeal was lodged, and, acting on the doctrines laid down by M. Baroche in his despatch, the Court reversed its judgment on 25th July 1867.

In 1876 one Roth,* who was born in Alsace, and had chosen French nationality after the annexation of Alsace by Germany, being accused of abus de confiance committed in France, and having fled to Germany, was surrendered by the German Government, although the crime of abus de confiance was not one of those specified in the treaty. The Cour de Cassation dismissed his appeal against the mandat d'arrêt in virtue of which he was imprisoned, on the grounds that the right of extradition belongs to a government by reason of its sovereign power, and not by reason of any treaty it may have made with the demand* Dalloz, Jurisp. Gén., 1876, i. 512.

ing State; that such treaties, though binding as far as they extend, cannot be any obstacle to extradition for other crimes than those specified in them; that such acts of haute administration are not subject to the control of the judicial authorities, which are not concerned with the motives by which an extradition has been prompted; and that the person surrendered has no right of raising objections to the propriety of his surrender.

So in the case of Cyvoct,* surrendered by Belgium in 1883, the Cour de Cassation laid down that extradition treaties are matters of haute administration between the two powers, the interpretation of which is for the powers themselves; and that a prisoner surrendered to the justice of his country in virtue of an extradition treaty cannot raise any question as to the application of the treaty: and in the case of Breuil de Rays,† surrendered by Spain in the same year, the Cour de Cassation held that the French courts are not to consider the circumstances under which the power of surrender has been exercised; the mere fact of the surrender invests them with jurisdiction to try the prisoner for the offence in respect of which he has been surrendered.

The principle laid down in these cases has been attacked with great perseverance by counsel representing prisoners brought before the French tribunals after extradition from other countries, but it must now be considered firmly established. The result of the cases is that there is nothing in the French law to prevent the courts from * Dalloz, Jurisp. Gén. 1884, i. 379. † Ibid. 139.

trying a prisoner for crimes other than that for which his surrender has been granted,* and that he cannot raise before the French tribunals any objection to his surrender founded on the terms of the treaty under which his surrender appears to have been made. The Minister of Justice may interpose and re-deliver the accused to the state which has surrendered him if he is acquitted of the offence for which he was given up, but this interposition is a political, not a judicial act, and cannot be compelled by any process known to the French law.

* In arguing the Lamirande case, Doutre, Q.C., said :—“In 1855 Carpentier, Grelet, and Parot were obtained from the United States for a particular crime; none of them was ever tried in France for that crime; two were found guilty of another crime; one died in gaol, the other is still there undergoing his sentence."

CHAPTER VII.

RULES OF PRACTICE IN THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.

Ir may be useful to gather up in one chapter the various rules with regard to the practical proceedings on demands made upon each of the countries whose law upon this subject has been considered. Demands by Great Britain upon France are always made by the ambassador in Paris in the name of the English Government directly upon the French Government, and are supported by a warrant of arrest issued by a magistrate in England, and copies of the depositions upon which it was founded. These last, however, are not necessary, the French authorities being contented to deliver up the fugitive upon the production of the warrant of the arrest only. The papers are always taken to France by a police-officer able to speak to the identity of the accused.

A circular * issued by the Minister of Justice (Dufaure) under date 12th Oct. 1875, recites that there were considerable inconveniences in the practice pursued by the French authorities up to that date,

* L'Extradition, par F. J. Kirchner, 1883, pp. 635 et seq.