« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
of the severest punishment, yet resistance to usurpation or tyranny may be inspired by the noblest motives, and in such political crises, failure renders him a criminal, success a hero. There is a wide divergence of opinion as to what constitutes treason, in different countries; in some dissent from the established church ; in some freedom of the press; so it would be very difficult for a foreign nation to judge between the contending parties, and it may itself be divided in its views as to the merits of the particular case. It is then a safer rule to exclude crimes of a purely political nature; but this principle. must not be carried to an extreme. Far different from such crimes are those of assassination and murder by weapons or explosives even when committed for the furtherance of some political or pretended political purpose. The making of such a distinction was the object of the recent extradition convention between United States and Belgium, which recognizes as a specific crime "the assassination or attempted ass:Assination of the chief of State ;” and it was agreed by European jurists that no European State would have refused to surrender to United States any of the parties concerned in the murder of President Lincoln, or to extradite Guiteau, had he escaped from this country. In regard to the proposed extradition of the Irish agitators, Sheridan from United States and Byrne from France, the Pall Mall Gazette says: “What is and what is not a political offense are questions the answer to which vary with the temper of the times, the prejudices of the judges and the political tendencies of the governments of the day. It has been our custom in England to give a very liberal interpretation to the term and we need not be surprised if the authorities in United States, if not in France” do the same; implying that, even if Sheridan and Byrne could bave been proved to have actively engaged in organizing the Assassination Society in Dublin, England, from her past policy in regard to the extradition of Orsini, the would-be assassin of Napoleon III., could have had no cause for complaint, if extradition were refused on the ground of political motive. It is an essential characteristic of a political crime that it takes place openly and without attempt at concealment; but such a dastardly, skulking crime as assassination loses none of its atrocity from its connection with a political or quasi-political motive. In general the United States should never refuse on the ground of the political purpose the demand for the extradition of a refugee accused of what, in the absence of such motive, would be an ordinary crime, unless it was committed in open insurrection. I say this should be our general policy, but, since peculiar cases might arise, discretionary power should be lodged either with the courts or the President, to refuse to deliver up a person so accused, if in their judgment any injustice would be done by complying with the demand.
Crimes, too, of a purely local nature should be excluded from extradition ; for many nations pass laws in regard to military service, religion, etc., which provide for very severe punishment of offenses not recognized in other countries to be of a serious nature, or perhaps offenses at all. An instance of this is our revenue laws, the violations of which in this country are punished with great severity, while they are treated as very trifling in England.
Hitherto, as I have said, the crimes which shall be regarded as subject to extradition between United States and foreign nations have been limited to a list of certain specified crimes of a most serious nature. But I can see no reasonable objection to extending the list to all crimes against person or property, irrespective of degree or quality of the crime, whether it be a felony or merely a misdemeanor, retaining as the only limitations those already laid down, that it be of neither a political vor local character. With regard to other than political and local crimes, it may be safely taken for granted, that the foreign government will not demand the surrender of an offender for a merely trivial offense, especially as the expense of the extradition is borne by the government making the demand; and on the other hand no man is willing to become an exile from bis native land except to escape the punishment due a crime of very grave nature. The United States bave been greatly hindered in their administration of justice by the few. ness of the number of extraditable crimes, specified in the Ashburton treaty; a forcible instance of this is the case of Miller in 1881 who, after having been convicted of burglary in Pennsylvania, escaped to Toronto, Canada, where the author
ities refused to surrender him, as burglary is not one of the crimes specified in the treaty (though he was afterward surrendered on another charge); yet burglary is a crime the suppression of which is for the interest of all mankind, and it is obviously for the interest of Canada not to add to the number of her own burglars. What, then, prevents United States from extending her meagre list of extradition crimes to all offenses against person and property, political and local crimes alone excepted ? Other civilized nations would soon follow our lead; or if they did not, it would be their own misfortune to become the refuge of our criminal classes.
In most of our treaties with foreign powers, it is expressly stipulated that a criminal extradited for one offense shall not be tried for any other; the reason for this stipulation is to prevent a man's being tried for a political or local crime after bav. ing been extradited for an ordinary offense admitted by the treaty. The British Royal Commission of 1878 reported against such a stipulation on the ground that, if political and local crimes be excepted, all injustice is removed. It does not seein to me however that their view is altogether sound. For we must not forget that, although in theory the delicate distinction between political and ordinary crimes is of great value, yet it is one that is extremely difficult to put into practice; and that, although attempts to make this distinction with such absolute clear ness as is necessary have frequently been made, they have invariably resulted in failure. Demands on the country for extradition of a criminal on ostensibly political or religious grounds have long ceased to be made; but the same result would be brought about if, after his surrender for some ordinary offense, he could be tried for another, the political character of which was at all doubtful; so that, so long as the foreign country satisfied itself that the crime was not of a political or local nature, it would make little difference what decision United States made on the subject. Therefore I think the stipulation ought to be retained in all our treaties, not be cause I consider it unexceptionable in theory, but because, in practical affairs, more perfect justice can be administered in that way, than in any that I have heard suggested.
Hitherto what has chiefly hindered the development of the laws of extradition has been the old principle of national exclusiveness, which, I am happy to say, is rapidly giving way to feelings of a broader and more cosmopolitan nature now that the fundamental reasons for such laws are being looked into a little more carefully. The truth is, our international re. lations of both peace and war in every other respect have had a far more rapid and steadier growth than our laws of extradition, which have not kept pace with such advancement, and in consequence prove very inadequate for the needs of the present time. The incomplete state in which we find our present laws on extradition may probably be attributed to the fragmentary and partial manner in which the subject has hitherto been brought to the attention of the public. The discussions on the subject, which have lately taken place, have been chiefly be. tween two countries, each fiercely partizan on each side, in arranging some special clause in some particular treaty, each acting for its own selfish interest, without having much of any reference to the broad ideas on which the subject is based What is needed is an International Conference among all the great powers, which would give the whole system a thorough overhauling from the foundation, and remove the obstacles wbich now impede the administration of justice, by setting forth in a clear light the fundamental principles of the subject without reference to any topic of ephemeral interest upon grounds of an equitable and permanent policy.
ARTICLE VI.-MORAL DEFECTS IN RECENT SUNDAY
A vast amount of conscientious, and in the main laudable, work is annually performed by the gentlemen (and ladies, too) who prepare the systematic biblical studies of Sunday schools. Here and there are slips. The committee who prepare the program sometimes have given away the Christmas or the Easter Sunday to Job or to Saul. The commentators, who prepare the question books for scholars and helps for teachers, have, as we shall now show, sometimes blindly followed the misplaced finger-posts of tradition, rather than the Scripture record, sound moral principles, and enlightened historical judg. ment. But the general merits of their work are not to be judged by such blunders, grave as they may appear to be.
It is, however, necessary to expose some of these blunders with an unsparing honesty, for the sake of the moral and religious interests imperiled by them. It is hardly to be doubted that much of the skepticism now current has no better foundation than the gross mistakes made by good but unwise men, who sincerely but blindly put error in the place of truth. At a time when the intensest light of criticism beats upon the teachings of the church, certain as it is that lessons implicitly received by trusting childhood are destined to be tried in after years by the keenest scrutiny of a doubting intelligence, -it surely behooves all Christian teachers to remove early from the difficult problems of religious faith whatever is dubious and whatever is misleading.
The Sunday school studies on the first book of Samuel, during the last months of the year 1883, seem, in an unusual number of instances, to illustrate the proverb of the blind leading the blind. We have examined a large assortment of the question books and helps provided by different editors, and find them all, in varying particulars, justly liable, in any honest criticism, to such an indictment. The lessons for 1884 upon the second book of Samuel will be found open here and