certain Danish claims on the United States had remained unsettled since 1799. The extreme poverty of the Danish government' was also put forward. At length, on the 20th of June, 1818, the Danish Minister of State replied that the King of Denmark could not admit that causes definitively terminated by competent tribunals can be made a subject of litigation. The negotiations, which were carried on successively by Ewing, by Forbes, by Campbell, and by Hughes, without result, were taken up by Wheaton in 1828, under instructions from Clay, Secretary of State, and were brought to a successful issue in March 1830.*

The Danish objection to the claims was thus stated in a note of August 17, 1825, to Hughes: "The sentences by which vessels bearing the flag of the United States have been released or condemned by the prize tribunals, or high court of admirality, are without appeal, and cannot, without derogating from that which has been established from the remotest times in the Danish Monarchy, be altered or annulled." In a paper of marked ablility Wheaton controverted this. He said: "The institution of these tribunals, so far from exempting or being intended to exempt the sovereign of the belligerent nation from responsibility, is designed to fix and ascertain that responsibility. Those cruisers are responsible only to the sovereign whose commission they bear. So long as seizures are regularly made upon apparent grounds of just suspicion, and followed by prompt adjudication in the usual mode, and until the acts of the captors are confirmed by the sovereign in the sentences of the tribunal appointed by him to adjudicate in matters of prize, the neutral has no ground of complaint, and what he suffers is the inevitable consequence of the belligerent right of capture. But the moment the decision of the tribunal of last resort has been pronounced against the claimant, (supposing it not to be warranted by the facts of the case and the law of nations as applied to those facts,) and justice has thus been finally denied, the capture and the condemnation become the acts of the State, for which the sovereign is responsible to the government of the claimant. * No greater sanctity can be imputed to the proceedings of prize tribunals, even by the most extravagant theory of the conclusiveness of their sentences, than is justly attributed to the acts of the sovereign himself. But those acts, however binding on his own subjects, if they are not conformable to the public law of the world, cannot be considered as binding on the subjects of other States. A wrong done to them forms an equally just subject of complaint on the part of their government, whether it proceed from the direct agency of the sovereign himself, or is inflicted by the instrumentality of his tribunals."

The claimants sent an agent to Copenhagen, with power to agree 3 MS. Dept.

Forbes to Secretary of State, 20 Dec., 1817. MS. Dept. of State. Ibid. of State. See Wheaton's paper, H. Doc. 249, 1st Sess. 22d Cong., 22 et. seq., for a brief sketch of the negotiations prior to his mission. 5 Ib., 24. 6 Ib., 26.

upon a compromise sum in gross. The King of Denmark offered to pay half a million marcs-banco of Hamburg. Wheaton said that the United States would consent to accept three millions of mares-banco.2 The parties agreed at length upon six hundred and fifty thousand Spanish milled dollars. In informing Mr. Van Buren of the signature of the Treaty, Wheaton said: "I have not before me sufficient material from which to form a judgment as to the real amount of the losses unjustly sustained by our citizens from Danish captures. You will find that Mr. Ewing, in his correspondence, estimates the actual loss at about $1,750,000, reckoning about thirty-five condemnations 'quite unjust,' to use his own expression. But supposing the real injury to have been considerably greater, the sum now recovered, considering the diminished resources of this exhausted country, will, I trust, be considered as a tolerable salvage from this calamitous concern.'

The Convention of 1867 with Denmark for the discontinuance of the Sound Dues was communicated to Congress by President Buchanan on the 14th of January, 1858.4

On the 24th of October, 1867, a Treaty was signed at Copenhagen for the cession of the island of St. Thomas to the United States. It was not assented to by the Senate. Correspondence relating to it was communicated to the Senate on the 19th of January, the 20th of January, and 17th of February, 1869.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.

The relations between the Dominican Republic and the United States, and between the Dominican Republic and Hayti, were the subject of a report from the Secretary of State to the Senate on the 16th of January, 1871.5 A Convention for the annexation of St. Domingo to the United States was then pending, and is among the papers enclosed in the report of the Secretary. The Convention was not approved by the Senate."

ECUADOR.

The Treaty of 1839 was transmitted to Congress with the President's Message at the beginning of the 3d Session of the 27th Congress.

1Ib., 19. 2 Ib., 20. 3 Wheaton to Van Buren, March 29, 1830, MS. Dept. of State, 4S. E. Doc. 28, 1st Sess. 35th Cong. See Lawrence's note 110, pages 333 to 338, Lawrence's Wheaton, for a sketch of previous negotiations on this subject. 5 S. E. Doc. 17. 3d Sess. 41st Cong. See also Globe, 1st Sess. 42d Cong., 86-88; 233–235; 253; 294307; 314-16; 327-329; 469-474; 523-534; 598; 814-817. 7S. E. Doc. 11, 3d Sess. 27th Cong.

EXTERBITORIALITY,

The rights of exterritoriality enjoyed by citizens of the United States in certain Oriental countries are considered under the Title "Consuls ;" the Consular officers being the persons entrusted with the enforcement of those rights.

The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva held that "the privilege of exterritoriality, accorded to vessels of war, had been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principle of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations." This is in accordance with the settled practice of the United States. Attorney-General Lee, in the early days of the Republic, gave his opinion that it is lawful to serve either civil or criminal process upon a person on board a British man-of-war lying within our territory.?

EXTRADITION.

The Statutes conferring upon the courts the power to enforce the various Extradition Treaties are, the Act of August 12, 1848,3 and the act of June 22, 1860.4

The crime for which the extradition of the accused is demanded must be a crime committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Power which makes the demand.5

In the absence of a Treaty there is no law which authorizes the President to deliver up any one found in the United States who is charged with having committed a crime against a foreign nation."

Under the Treaty with Great Britain it is necessary to prove such facts as would justify the apprehension of the criminal and his commitment for trial at the place where the arrest is made. The mode of procedure in such case examined.8

The same rule exists in regard to France.9

Any foreign government entitled by Treaty to the extradition of a fugitive from justice, may apply to the courts in the first instance; but, if requested, the President will issue a previous authorization.10 In Kane's case11 a portion of the court seemed to think that the President's mandate was necessary for the commencement of the proceedings. If there is no diplomatic agent, the application may be made through some other

1 4 Pap. rel. Tr. W., 50. 21 Op. Att.-Gen., 87. 39 St. at L., 302. 12 St. at L., 84. For a sketch of negotiations in this respect see Lawrence's Wheaton, note 78, page 236. 1 Op. At.-Gen., 83, Lee. Ib., 8, 215, Cushing. Vogt's case, Williams, July 21 1873. Holmes rs. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540. 2 Op. At.-Gen., 452, Taney. Ib., 559, Taney. 6 Ib., 85, Cushing. See also Dana's note (Dana's Wheaton) No. 78, pages 182-184. 74 Op. At.-Gen, 201, Nelson. 8 See Kaine's case, 10 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 257. The British Prisoners, 1 Woodbury & Minot, 66. Ware's case, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 346. Heilbron's case, 12 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 65. 94 Op. At.-Gen., 330, Nelson. See Veremaitre's case, 9 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 129. 106 Op. At.-Gen., 91, Cushing. 14 Howard, 103.

recognized channel. A clerical error in the letter authorizing commencement of proceeding is immaterial.2

Only prima facie evidence of the commission of the crime is necessary. But a mere notification is not sufficient prima facie evidence.1 Where a person claimed as a fugitive from justice is under examination before a Commissioner of the United States, a State court cannot revise the case on Habeas Corpus.5

Constructive Larceny, or Embezzlement, is not among the causes of extradition provided for by the Treaty of 1842 between Great Britain and the United States.6

On the 28th of February 1856, the case of a breach of trust was not embraced among the crimes for which extradition would be demanded in the United States by France. The term "public officers," or "public depositaries," in a Treaty, signifies officers or depositaries of the government only, and does not comprehend officers of a railroad company.8 See a note by Mr. Cushing in the Appendix to the 8th Volume of the Opinions of the Attorneys-General for a résumé of the then subsisting Treaties of Extradition.

The expenses of counsel in conducting legal proceedings for extradition are to be borne by the government making the demand.9

Unless otherwise provided by Treaty it is immaterial whether the person demanded is or is not a citizen of the United States.10

FRANCE.

The introductory note sets forth with sufficient minuteness the circumstances under which the Treaties of Alliance and of Amity and Commerce of 1778, and the Consular Convention of 1788 were concluded. The latter is the only one of the Treaties concluded before the adoption of the Constitution which has received the constitutional assent of the Senate.

On the 25th of January, 1782, the Continental Congress passed an act authorizing and directing Dr. Franklin to conclude a Consular Convention with France on the basis of a scheme which was submitted to that body. Dr. Franklin concluded a very different convention, which Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Congress did not approve." Franklin having returned to America, the negotiations then fell upon Jefferson, who concluded the Convention of 1788. This was laid before the Senate by President Washington on the 11th of June, 1789.

On the 21st of July it was ordered that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs attend the Senate to-morrow and bring with him such papers as

18 Op. At.-Gen., 240, Cushing. 28 Op. At.-Gen., 420, Cushing. 36 Op. At.-Gen., 217 Cushing. 47 Op. At.-Gen., 6, Cushing. 56 Op. At.-Gen., 237, 290, Cushing. Ib., 431, Cushing. 77 Op. At.-Gen., 643, Cushing. 88 Op. Att.-Gen., 106, Cushing. 99 Op. At.Gen., 497, Black. 10 Wheaton's State Trials, 392. 1 D. C., 1783–89, 232.

are requisite to give full information relative to the Consular Convention between France and the United States. Jay was the Secretary thus "ordered." He was holding over, as the new Department was not then created. The Bill to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs had re.ceived the assent of both Houses the previous day, but had not yet been approved by the President.3 Jay appeared, as directed, and made the necessary explanations. The Senate then Resolved that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs under the former Congress be requested to peruse the said Convention, and to give his opinion how far he conceives the faith of the United States to be engaged, either by former agreed stipulations or negotiations entered into by our Minister at the Court of Versailles, to ratify in its present sense or form the Convention now referred to the Senate. Jay made a written report on the 27th of July that in his judg ment the United States ought to ratify the Convention; and the Senate gave its unanimous consent. The Statute to carry the Convention into effect was passed the 14th of April, 1792.8

Three articles in the treaties with France' concluded before the Constitution became the cause of difference between the two Powers:

1. Article XI of the Treaty of Alliance, by which the United States, for a reciprocal consideration, agreed to guarantee to the King of France his possessions in America, as well present as those which might be acquired by the Treaty of Peace.

2. Article XVII of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, providing that each party might take into the ports of the other its prizes in time of war, and that they should be permitted to depart without molestation; and that neither should give shelter or refuge to vessels which had made prizes of the other unless forced in by stress of weather, in which case they should be required to depart as soon as possible.

3. Article XXII of the same Treaty, that foreign privateers, the enemies of one party, should not be allowed in the ports of the other to fit their ships or to exchange or sell their captures, or to purchase provisions except in sufficient quantities to take them to the next port of their own State.

'Jefferson, who was the Minister of the United States at the Court of Versailles when the Constitution went into operation, was appointed Secretary of State by President Washington on the 26th of September, 1789. He accepted the appointment and presented Short to Neckar as chargé d'affaires of the United States.9

Governeur Morris, of New York, who had been in Europe from the dawn of the French revolution, and had been in regular friendly correspondence with Washington,10 was appointed Minister to France on the 12th of January, 1792. At the time of the appointment Washington

1 Annals 1st Sess. 1st Cong., 52. 2 Ib., 685. 3 Ib., 52. Ib. 5Ib. Ib., 54. Ib. 1 St. at L., 254. 93 Jefferson's Works, 119. 101 F. R. F., 379-399.