have learned the glorious issue of this war for the United States of America, and how fully we are persuaded that it will be for the general interests of the two States to form, as soon as possible, reciprocal connections of friendship and commerce. Nothing certainly would be more agreeable to us than to learn by your letters that you find the same dispositions in Mr. Franklin."

De Walterstorf went to Paris, and made the acquaintance of Franklin, and assured him that the King had a strong desire to have a Treaty of Friendship and Commerce with the United States. Franklin informed Robert Livingston of the advances, and suggested that Congress should send the necessary powers for entering into the negotiations: but nothing came of it. Franklin would not go on without a special power, 3 and no special power came.

It was not until 1826 that a Commercial Convention was concluded at Washington with Denmark. This was transmitted to Congress with President Adams's message at the beginning of the second session of the 19th Congress.1

At that time claims were also pending against Denmark, for spoliations during the wars of Napoleon.

"The allegations on which the seizure and condemnation of American vessels and their cargoes were made and attempted to be justified were principally three. 1. The possession of false and simulated papers, by which, it was alleged, an American character was stamped on British property. 2. Sailing under British convoy, whereby, it was alleged, our vessels lost the immunities of our flag, and subjected themselves to be treated as British property; and, 3. The possession of French consular certificates of origin after the French consuls were forbidden to give them, except to vessels sailing direct to French ports."5

The reclamations were first made on the 23d of June, 1811, by Ewing, U. S. Minister at Copenhagen, in a note to de Rosenkrantz, Danish Minister for foreign affairs. "The total amount of captures in 1809 and 1810 was 160, of which cases 42 (including 16 of vessels which had broken the embargo or non-intercourse, or were otherwise not genuine American cases) were condemnations, and 24 were pending, including 10 convoy cases. In 1811, previous to the date of Ewing's letter, two vessels were taken and condemned in Norway, and two others were then under trial there; making in all 28 cases as the subject of Ewing's communication to the Danish Minister of State. Subsequent representations were made from time to time without reaching

Danish courts continued to exercise the objectionable jurisdiction, and to make condemnation. To the complaints of the United States against the long delay in auswering, response was made that

19 Franklin's Works, 487-488. Ib., 512. 3 Ib., 537. 46 F. R. F., 266. 2 5 Clay to Wheaton, May 31, 1827, H. Doc. 49, 1st Sess. 22d Cong. MS. Dept. of State.

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."6

The claimants sent an agent to Copenhagen, with power to agree

4

1Forbes to Secretary of State, 20 Dec., 1817. MS. Dept. of State. Ibid. 3 MS. Dept 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. Ib., 24. 6 Ib., 26.

5

upon a compromise sum in gross. The King of Denmark offered to pay half a million marcs-banco of Hamburg.1 Wheaton said that the United States would consent to accept three millions of marcs-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."3

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.7

1

1 Ib., 19. 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. 5S. 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. S. E. Doc. 11, 3d Sess. 27th Cong.

EXTERRITORIALITY.

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.3

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.*

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.6

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.

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

14 Pap. rel. Tr. W., 50. 21 Op. Att.-Gen., 87. 39 St. at L., 302. 412 St. at L., S. For a sketch of negotiations in this respect see Lawrence's Wheaton, note 78, page 236. 51 Op. At.-Gen., 83, Lee. Ib., 8, 215, Cushing. Vogt's case, Williams, July 21 1873. Holmes vs. 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. 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."

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 govern ment only, and does not comprehend officers of a railroad company. 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. 17 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.