has been no express condition to the contrary at the time when the member of the Embassy is received by his own Government."

Whatever may have been Wheaton's variation in opinion, however, it seems tolerably clear that the proposition last mentioned represents the view of the chief authorities who have dealt at all definitely with the question.

It is true that so recent and distinguished a writer as Mr. Hall, in a note in the last edition of his valuable work on International Law,* asserts without qualification that when "a subject is accepted by a State as the representative of a foreign country his character as a subject is effaced in that of the diplomat." It is probable that Mr. Hall, if he had examined the question in greater detail would have agreed with Sir Robert Phillimore's enunciation of the rules applicable.t Mr. Justice Mathew, apparently relying mainly on Phillimore and the earlier authorities cited by him, came to what seems to be the only reasonable conclusion, viz., that as Sir Halliday Macartney had been received by our Government without any reservations or conditions whatsoever, it was to be tacitly implied that he was recognised to possess the full and complete jus legationis, and therefore came within the scope and privilege of the Statute.

New Extradition Treaties.

Within the last few months negotiations have been going on between the United States and Great Britain and the United States and Russia for new Treaties in the matter of Extradition. It has long been a notorious fact that the

*London. 1890. p. 174.

+ Commentaries on International Law, Vol. II., par. cxxxv. London. 3rd. Ed. 1882.

Bynkershoek, De Foro Legatorum. Lugd. Bat. 1721. cap. 11., and Calvo,

Ashburton Treaty of 1842 is altogether inadequate to satisfy the requirements of the present day as between ourselves and the United States. The new Treaty is very much more exhaustive in the list of offences which it would make Extradition crimes. It has at length received the formal ratification of the Senate, having been some time ago settled by the Plenipotentiaries of the respective Governments, Mr. Blaine and Sir Julian Pauncefote.

The proposed Treaty would add to the former meagre list of Extradition crimes the following:-1. Manslaughter; 2. Counterfeiting money or uttering the same; 3. Embezzlement, larceny, receiving stolen goods and obtaining money by false pretences: 4. Fraud by bailee, trustee, etc.; 5. Perjury or subornation of perjury; 6. Rape, abduction, and kidnapping; 7. Burglary and housebreaking; 8. Piracy by the Law of Nations; 9. Mutiny or conspiracy to mutiny, and assault on board ship with intent to do grievous bodily harm; 10. Crimes against the laws of both countries for the suppression of slavery and slave trading.

The most noteworthy point in this new category lies in the fact that Piracy Jure gentium is added. By the Judicial interpretation of the old Treaty, Piracy was limited to cases of Piracy by Municipal Law, on the ground than an offence, to come within the scope of the Treaty, must have been committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State making the demand, and Piracy Jure gentium was a matter cognisable by any State, whatever the nationality of the delinquents, and wherever committed.* Piracy, by the Law of Nations, was, however, one of the offences expressly enumerated in the Extradition Act, 1870, and it would seem that, should the present Treaty be ratified, there will

* R. v. Tivnan, 5 B. & S. 645; and cf. In re Bennet, 11 L.T.R. 488, and the American case of In re Sheazle, 1 Wood & Min. 66, cited in Wharton, Digest, p. 805.

be a mutual obligation on the part of each country to surrender alleged pirates Jure Gentium to the other State, if they are subjects of that State.

The new Treaty proceeds to re-enact more definitely or to supplement the provisions of the old one as to nonextradition for offences of a Political nature, mode of procedure, etc., but the only other alteration of primary importance is that introduced by Article III. :—“That no person surrendered by or to either of the high contracting parties shall be triable for any crime or offence "committed prior to extradition, other than the offence for "which he was extradited, and until he shall have had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he 66 was surrendered.”

66

Such a provision is, since the Extradition Act of 1870, an essential clause in any Treaty to which Great Britain is a party. No provision to the same effect having been made in the Ashburton Treaty, there had, until quite recently, been considerable friction, on more than one occasion, on this point between the United States and Great Britain.* In a recent case, that of U.S. v. Rauscher, however, where the prisoner was extradited by England on a charge of murder of a seaman, the Supreme Court appear, in December, 1886, to have completely overthrown the arguments of most of their own politicians and diplomatists, and to have held distinctly, in conformity with the opinion expressed by Dr. Wharton, when citing the judgment (Digest, II., p. 797), that the prisoner could not be tried on the charge of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, though in connection with the same seaman and upon the same evidence as had been adduced at the Extradition.

The complete revolution in American practice caused by

Especially in the well-known cases of Lawrence, 1875, and Winslow, 1876,

this Judgment was fully recognised by our own Courts in the very recent case of In re Alice Woodhall, 57 L.J. M.C. 72 ; Coleridge, L.C.J., Field and Wills, JJ., on an application for a habeas corpus, unanimously recognising the necessity of the assumption "that the Courts of the United States will "be governed by the law declared by the Supreme "authority of that country."

In any case, the Article in the new Treaty, if the latter should be ratified, as there seems to be every reason to believe that it will and must finally settle the question, and put an end once for all to what has for the last forty years been a fruitful source of Diplomatic recriminations between the two countries.

As regards the Russo-American Treaty an unexpected and serious difficulty has arisen owing to the refusal of the U.S. Senate to accept one clause, known as the

Dynamite Clause," providing for the mutual surrender of political offenders when the latter are guilty of killing or attempting to kill the Sovereign or Chief Magistrate of the State demanding extradition, or any member of his family.*

The objection taken to this provision perhaps justifies to some extent the position assumed by the Senate. It points out that, in the case of offences within the scope of the clause, no Jury is allowed by Russian Law at the trial of the accused; the proceedings are all before a military tribunal, and are, to a great extent, secret, and therefore, it is argued, are altogether "contrary to the doctrines of modern penal jurisprudence."

On these grounds the Treaty was relegated to that Limbo of American Diplomacy, the Foreign Committee, and at

[* Such a limitation of the principle of the non-extradition of Political offenders has, however, been advocated by so distinguished an American Jurist as Hon. David Dudley Field, at a Conference of the Association for the

present there seems to be no probability of its receiving the necessary ratification as long as the obnoxious clause is retained.

The Monroe Doctrine once more.

We had occasion some time ago to refer to an attempt to apply the Monroe Doctrine in a somewhat aggressive and startling manner to the question of the Panama Canal.* Early in the present year another remarkable attempt to assert the Doctrine in specific form was made by a member of the Senate of the United States in the shape of a Resolution on the subject of the recent Cuban Loan.† The Senate was asked to acquiesce in a proposition to the effect that "Everything done or attempted in Cuba tending in any way to transfer the financial and political control of Cuba to any European power is contrary to the policy and best interests of the U.S., and must be discontinued and protested against."

Seeing that the premises on which this conclusion purported to be based consisted merely in the fact that by a decree of the Queen of Spain, and with the help of German financiers, more or less under the influence of the German Government, the Public Debt of Cuba has been consolidated, the unbiassed third party is almost inclined to say non constat." The Senate, however, was by no means disposed to return this answer, but contented itself, for the time, with leaving the matter in the hands of the Foreign Committee.

66

Foreign Marriages in "Heathen" Countries.

Two instructive cases on the doctrine in Hyde v. Hyde, L.R. 1 P. & M. 130, have recently been decided, one

*Law Magazine and Review, No. CCLXXI., February, 1889, p. 146.