Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

stances to the knowledge of your Government, in order that means may be found for the solution of the present difficulty.

To this note Secretary Fish replied by telegram to General Schenck, on March 3d, as follows:

The treaty of extradition between the United States and Great Britain admits no right in either party to exact conditions beyond those expressed in the treaty. The promise now asked in regard to Winslow is not in accordance with the treaty, and cannot be given. You will request the surrender of the fugitive on the terms of the treaty.

A note from Lord Derby to Mr. Hoffman, secretary of legation, in the absence of General Schenck, under date of March 8th, concluded as follows:

But, in view of the difficulty created in consequence of what has recently occurred in the case of Lawrence, as well as the positive enactment of section 3, subsection 2, of the extradition act of 1870, quoted in the second paragraph of my note to General Schenck, of the 29th ultimo, her Majesty's Government do not feel themselves justified in authorizing the surrender of Winslow until they shall have received the assurance of your Government that this person shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in the United States for any offense committed prior to his surrender other than the extradition crimes proved by the facts on which the surrender would be grounded; and I have the honor to request that you will communicate this decision to your Government, in order that some arrangement may be come to in the matter.

On March 31st Secretary Fish addressed to Mr. Hoffman as instructions a lengthy reply to the points advanced by Lord Derby above. The following are extracts from this reply:

It seems, therefore, that the Home Office of Great Britain undertakes to decide what is the law of the United States, as well as of Great Britain, and assumes that the law of the United States, as well as general w of extradition and the extradition act of Great Britain, prevents the trial of a criminal surrendered nder the treaty of 1842 for any offense other than the particular offense for which he was extradited; and The position which it takes involves the assumption that, in demanding an extradition under the treaty, the United States is bound by the provisions of the act of 1870, whether in conflict with the treaty or not, and it claims to have " supposed" that an "effective arrangement was in force" that no criminal so surrendered should be tried for any other than the particular extradition offense; on the faith of which arrangement it is claimed that surrenders have heretofore been made, and without which it is now said that a surrender would not be possible under an English at; but, as already said, nothing is adduced in suppart of the belief of the existence of such supposed arrangement.

This act is simply a general act for carrying into effect treaties of extradition. It provides the machinery, and prescribes the general mode of procedure, but does not assume to determine the rights of the United States, or of any other state, which are governed wholly by the particular provisions of the several treaties, nor to limit or construe any particular treaty.

In some few treaties between the United States and foreign countries provisions exist that the criminal shall not be tried for offenses committed prior to extradition, other than the extradition crime, and in others no such provision is included.

Again, under some treaties, the citizens or subjects of the contracting powers are reciprocally exempt from being surrendered, while others contain no such exception. The United States act of 1848 is equally applicable to all these differing treaties. If the surren dered fugitive is to find immunity from trial for other than the offense named in the warrant of extradition, he must find such immunity guaranteed to him by the terms of the treaty, not in the act of Congress. The treaties which contain the immunity from trial for other offenses have been celebrated since the date of the act of 1848.

At that date the United States had treaties of extradition only with Great Britain and with France, neither of which contained the limitation referred to.

The terms of the respective treaties alone define or can limit the rights of the contracting parties. The construction of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, by the two Governments, and their practice in its enforcement for many years, were in entire harmony. In each country surrendered fugitives have been tried for other offenses than those for which they had been delivered; the rule having been that, where the criminal was reclaimed in good faith, and the proceeding was not an excuse or pretense to bring him within the jurisdiction of the court, it was no violation of the treaty, or of good faith, to proceed against him on other charges than the particular one on which he had been surrendered.

Now, for the first time since the signing of the treaty of 1842, Great Britain raises the question of her riglit

to demand from the United States, as a condition of the execution by Great Britain of her engagement to surrender a fugitive criminal charged with a series of stupendous forgeries, a stipulation or agreement not provided for in the treaty, but asked on the ground that an act of Parliament, passed some twenty-eight years after the treaty had been in force, prescribes it as one of the rules or conditions which should apply to arrangements for extradition, when made with a foreign state.

This involves the question whether one of the parties to a treaty can change and alter its terms or construction or attach new conditions to its execution without the assent of the other-whether an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, passed in the year 1870, can change the spirit or terms of a treaty with the United States of nearly thirty years' anterior date, or can attach a new condition, to be demanded of the United States before compliance by her Majesty's Government with the terms of the treaty, as they have been shown to have been uniformly understood and executed by both Governments for the third of a century.

As this Government does not recognize any efficacy in a British statute to alter or modify or to attach new These positions are so different from the understand conditions to the executory parts of a previously-existing of this Government, and so opposed to the views ing treaty between the United States and Great Britwhich it was supposed were entertained by Great Britain, I do not feel called upon to examine particularly ain, and which have been recorded in parlimentary Papers, which have been asserted in diplomatic correspondence, and been recognized in judicial decisions in that as in this country, and set forth by writers on extradition law, that I learn from Lord Derby's note, with surprise equal to my regret, that they uppear to be supported by the Foreign Office.

The act of August 12, 1848, reproduced in the Revised Statutes (sections 5270 to 5276), referred to in The correspondence, does not affect or limit the rights of the two Governments on the question.

the provision of the law of 1870. But inasmuch as Great Britain seeks to impose the provisions of that act upon the United States in the execution of a treaty of many years' anterior date, I do not fail to observe that, while by the act Great Britain assumes to require that no surrendered fugitive shall be tried in the country which demands his extradition for "any offense other than the extradition crime" (in the singular), proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded, she reserves to herself the right to try the fugitive surrendered to her for such crimes (in the plural) as

may be proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded.

This does not seem to be wholly reciprocal, and if the United States were disposed to enter into a treaty under this act, it might expect some greater equality of right than a cursory examination of this provision in the act seems to provide

The President regrets that a condition which, in his judgment, is without any justification under the treaty, should have been asked. He regards the question thus presented as of a grave and serious character, on the final solution of which must probably depend the continuance of the extradition article of the treaty of 1842. He cannot recognize the right of any other power to change at its pleasure, and without the assent of the United States, the terms and conditions of an executory agreement in a treaty solemnly ratified between the United States and that power. He thinks that the twenty-seventh section of the British act of 1870 was specially intended to exempt the treaty with the United States from the application of any of the new conditions or provisions embodied in that act, and to leave that treaty to be construed, and the surrender of fugitives thereunder to be made, as had been previously done.

On May 4th Lord Derby made a reply to the above, which had been delivered to him with the request that it be substituted for a note addressed to him by Mr. Hoffman communicating it. The following is an extract from this reply:

Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the proposition that the English extradition act of 1870 imposed a new condition upon the treaty of 1842. They maintain that if that act had never been passed, it would have been the duty of her Majesty's Government, under the act of 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 76, upon which the treaty then rested, and the general law of extradition, to have protested against any extradition prisoner being tried in the United States for crimes other than those of which he was accused in this coun

try, and, had that protest been disregarded by the Government of the United States, the British Government would have been equally bound to require an assurance in any subsequent case that a prisoner would only be tried for the crime or crimes for which he was surrendered.

And while dealing with this part of the case, I would ask how the United States Government is prepared to reconcile the views expressed in your note in favor of the assertion of the right of asylum for political offenses with the principle you have been instructed to

advocate.

There is no principle of international law more clearly admitted than that advanced by you, that each state is judge of its own administration of justice; and, with regard to the right of asylum for political offenses, it is clear that the nation surrendering is to be the judge of what is or is not a political offense, the more so because opinions differ in different countries on this question.

But if the principle contended for in your note be correct, what is to prevent the United States Government from claiming a prisoner from this Government for an extradition crime and trying him afterward for an offense which in this country would be deemed a political offense, but which in the United States might be viewed under a different aspect?

Her Majesty's Government believe that the only test and the only safeguard for the liberty of the individual and the maintenance of the right of asylum are to be found in the principle for which they contend, that the crime or crimes of which a man is accused in the country surrendering, which are proved against him there, and for which he is surrendered, are the only crimes for which he ought to be tried in the country claiming, and that without this safeguard the liberties of the subjects and citizens of the two nations might

be jeopardized and put into the power of political parties or of the vindictiveness of the receiving government, who, ex consessis, is not the proper judge of whether a particular offense is a political one or not. And here I must observe, with reference to your com ment on the words "deliver up to justice," that if those words can be construed as having the extended meaning for which you contend, namely, "deliver up to justice generally," there would be no object in having a list of extradition crimes for which alone an accused person can be claimed, and the construction would be in direct opposition to the act of Congress of August, 1848, chap. 147, sec. 3, and 6 and 7 Vict., chap. 76, sec. 3, "to be tried for the crime for which he is so accused," the word being identical in both

acts.

I now proceed to consider the effect of the extradition act of 1870, and I will state at once that her Majesty's Government do not contend that any of the provisions of that act have any force or effect in any foreign state.

They look upon that act only as declaratory of the law that is to govern the British Government in the matters to which it refers, and they consider that none of its provisions are inconsistent with the treaty of 1842, section 27.

It is to be regarded as intended to prevent for the future the evils that were pointed out by Mr. Hammond and others as having occurred, and being liable to occur, in private prosecutions to which the attention of Government had not been called.

Her Majesty's Government consider the provisions of the act as having been devised, not in the particu lar interests or for the particular ends of Great Britain, but as the embodiment of what was the general opinion of all countries on the subject of extradition, and as being beneficial to all and injurious to none.

That the general opinion of European nations has justified this view, is proved by the acceptance, by most of the leading nations of Europe, of extradition treaties based upon its provisions.

The attention of the United States Government was drawn to the provisions of the act immediately after it became law, as is shown by Sir E. Thornton's cons munication to Mr. Fish of the 22d of September, 1870; and it is evident that Mr. Fish's notice was called to the effect of the restrictions of clause 3, subsection 2, from the question which he shortly afterward put to Sir E. Thornton, whether it would be possible that a stipulation could be inserted in any new convention, that if, during the trial of a person whose extradition had been asked for on a minor crime, such as larceny, evidence previously unknown should appear that a prisoner had been guilty of a higher crime, such as murder, it should be legal to try him for the latter crime. To this question Sir E. Thornton, by instruc tion from her Majesty's Government, returned the following answer in writing:

That any provision in the treaty, by which a fugitive surrendered for one offense mentioned in the schedule may be tried for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime for which he was surrendered, would be inadmissible. Indeed, the treaty, if it is to be carried out, must contain a provision exactly to the opposite effect.

The draught of a new convention between the two countries was afterward prepared, and Article VI. of that draught, as it originally stood, was as follows:

When any person shall have been surrendered by either of the high contracting parties to the other, such person shall

not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to the country whence he was surrendered, bé triable or tried for any offense committed in the other country prior to the surrender, other than the particular offense on account of which he was surrendered.

Although much discussion took place on different provisions of this draught-convention, and consider able alterations and modifications of the original draught were proposed by the United States Government and adopted by the British Government, not one word of objection was ever raised by the United

States Government to Article VI. The only proposal made by then with reference to the article was the addition, at the end of it, of the words "No person shall be deemed to have had an opportunity of returning to the country whence he was surrendered until two months at least shall have elapsed after he shall have been set at liberty and free to return;" which was assented to by the British Government. The terms of that convention were, in fact, with one exception, virtually agreed upon by both Governments; that exception was a difference which arose upon Article VII., relating to political offenses.

The original article was to the effect that "no accused or convicted person should be surrendered if the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded shall be deemed by the party upon whom the demand is made to be of a political character, or if he prove to the satisfaction [of the police magistrate, or of the police judge, or commissioners named in Article III. of this treaty, or of the court before whom he is brought on habeas corpus, or] of the Secretary of State that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or to punish him for an offense of a political character."

The United States Government proposed to leave out the words between brackets, and thus restrict the power of deciding as to what was a political of fense to the Secretary of State alone.

To this the British Government could not agree, as the effect would have been to deprive an accused of his right to habeas corpus; to take away from him the power of proving at once his right to be set at liberty and of taking the objection in the first instance before the tribunal before whom he was brought immediate ly on his arrest.

This would be contrary to the spirit of English law, entirely apart from the extradition act of 1870; would have been a direct blow to the liberties of persons elaiming asylum in this country; would put it in the power of a Secretary of State to keep an accused person in prison who ought to have been set at liberty at once, and who ought to have the opportunity given him of claiming his right to be set at liberty at the very first moment that he was charged before any

tribunal.

It was for these reasons that the British Government declined to accede to the proposal; and, if the rights of an accused, which were well known and established in this country long before the extradition act was passed, are secured to him, there is not, as far as her Majesty's Government are aware, any other matter of difference between the two Governments which would prevent that convention from being

signed at the present moment.

It does not, therefore, appear how, in any respect, the act of 1870 erected an insurmountable barrier in the way of a convention, as alleged in your note. It appears, therefore, that the provisions of the extradition act of 1870 and the powers of the British Government under it having thus been clearly brought to the notice of the United States Government, both countries continued, without any question, mutually to surrender persons accused of crimes within the

treaty of 1842.

No case arose in either country, to the knowledge of the British Government, in which any departure was made from the usual practice, and no prisoner was ever, to the knowledge of the British Government, tried for any offense other than that of which he had been accused in the country surrendering. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, contend that they and their predecessors were justified in consider ing that, by the tacit and implied consent of each country, this practice would be continued, and that it was not necessary to ask for any positive arrangement to secure that object.

Further correspondence ensued, without ef fecting any change in the position of the two Governments, and on June 20th the President

sent a message to Congress stating the facts, and concluding as follows:

It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article of the treaty relating to extradition is to be any longer regarded as obligatory on the Government of the United States or as forming part of the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of Congress that f should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842.

No action was taken by Congress on the subject, and affairs continued without change until the 27th of October, when Sir Edward Thornton, the British minister at Washington, addressed the following note to Secretary Fish:

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that I have received instructions from the Earl of Derby to state to you that her Majesty's Government, having regard to the very serious inconvenience and the great encouragement of crime which would arise from the continued suspension of the extradition of criminals between the British dominion and the United States, will be prepared, as a temporary measure until a new extradition treaty can be concluded, to put in force all the powers vested in it for the surrender of accused persons to the Government of the United States, under the treaty of 1842, without asking for any engagement as to such persons not being tried in the United States for other than the offenses for which extradition has been demanded. It is, however, to be borne in mind that each Government has the right laid down in the eleventh article of the treaty of 1842, which provides that the eleventh article shall continue in force until one or the other of the parties shall signify its wish to terminate it, and no longer. I have, etc., EDWARD THORNTON.

This was satisfactory to the United States Government, and President Grant again regarded the treaty as operative, hoping before long to conclude a more comprehensive one with the British Government.

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. The General Missionary Convention of the Disciples of Christ met at Richmond, Va., October 17th. About two hundred delegates were in attendance, representing thirteen States and the District of Columbia. The Rev. W. K. Pendleton presided. The report of the General Board on Home Missions showed that the total amount (proximately) of $45,500 had been disbursed by the General and State Boards in this work, and that through its means about 3,250 members had been added and 21 churches organized. The board had secured, toward the formation of a permanent interest-bearing fund, the sum of $1,893.57; it had also in prospective the proceeds of notes to be paid in installments, amounting to $5,707.50; of bequests already made in wills, $21,007.36; of bequests which had been promised to the corresponding secretary during the year, $40,000. A beginning of permanent funds of State conventions had been made in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. It was estimated that 200 weak congregations had been aided during the year. A satisfactory condition as to statistical information had been attained in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and Nebraska, and the board

1

hoped, through arrangements already projected, to be able in a few years to give the statistics of the entire Church. The Bibleschool at Louisville, Ky., had been kept up during the year, with a class of fifteen students. Some ten or twelve of the young men of the school were already in the field, doing good service, in Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, and other parts of the South. The school, however, had encountered difficulties, in consequence of which it had been necessary to delay the time of opening for the next year. The efforts to raise $10,000 for this school had not been successful. The board advised that they be continued, or that attention be given to a plan for building up local Bible-schools for colored ministers in as many Southern States as possible. A project had been formed to establish an institution in Mississippi to prepare colored men for the ministry, to be called the "Southern Christian Institute." A charter had been obtained for it, requiring $10,000 as a minimum and $250,000 as a maximum of capital stock. The sum of $15,000 had been promised by one gentleman as soon as $10,000 were obtained from other persons. An increasing interest was reported in the cause of foreign missions, and was manifested in the convention. This work was not yet fully organized, but its importance was being urged upon the attention of the churches.

The Sunday-school secretary reported that it had been impossible to obtain very general trustworthy statistics of the condition of the Sunday-schools. There had been steady, healthy progress in several States. More than one hundred institutes, conventions, and normal classes, had been held. State organizations had been perfected in Ohio (1867), Indiana (1867), Illinois (1868), Kentucky (1874), Iowa (1874), California (1875), and Missouri (1875). In New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, and Nebraska, Sunday-school work was considered in connection with State conventions. Steps toward organizing this work had also been taken in Mississippi, Virginia, and South Carolina. A list was given of ten papers published by Disciples in the interest of Sunday-schools, having an aggregate circulation of upward of 65,600 copies. Most of the weekly papers of the denomination had Sundayschool departments.

It was stated in the convention that $110,000 had been given to benevolent objects during the year, in addition to the amount which was officially reported by the General Board. During the seven years since the general and State organizations of the convention for missionary work had been formed, 38,500 members had been added to the churches, and about 260 new congregations had been organized.

The annual convention of the Christian Woman's Board of Missions was held at Indianapolis, Ind., October 11th. Mrs. Maria Jamieson presided. Reports were made by the

State secretaries from the States of Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Illinois, and Missouri, and contributions were received from the States of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Mississippi, not represented in the convention. The treasurer reported: Funds received, $2,921.85; cash disbursed, $1,120.70; leaving a balance in the treasury of $1,801.15. A resolution was adopted favoring the introduction of missionary interests into the Sunday-schools and among the children at home. The subject of the introduction of life-memberships, as a means of securing an endowment fund, was considered. The society has made a beginning of missionary work in Jamaica. DOMINION OF CANADA. A military college has been established by the Dominion at Kingston, Ontario. The course is four years, and is designed to impart a complete education in all branches of military tactics, fortification, engineering, and general scientific knowledge in subjects connected with, and necessary to, a thorough knowledge of the military profession, and to qualify officers for command and for staff appointments. Cadets are admitted upon competitive examination. Parliament appropriated the sum of $19,486,616.02 for the expenses of the Dominion for the year ending June 30, 1877, including $689,021.50 for civil government, $306,175.69 for penitentiaries, $304,158 for legislation, $290,130 for immigration and quarantine, $952,551.50 for militia, $1,176,850 for public works and buildings, $301,281.67 for ocean and river service, $386,042.50 for lighthouse and coast service, $301,596 for Indians, $697,591 for customs service, $235,800 for excise service, $2,330,291.66 for maintenance and repairs of public works,

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

ing Indians (known as the "Indian act," 1876), one amending the Dominion land acts, one making further provision in regard to the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court of Canada, and one amending the insolvent act of 1875. An important act sets apart the eastern

KINGSTON, CANADA.

portion of the Northwest Territories "as a separate district of the said Northwest Territories by the name of the District of Keewatin." The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is er officio Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin. The district is bounded as follows: "Beginning at the westerly boundary of the Province of Ontario on the international boundary-line dividing Canada from the United States of America; then westerly, following upon the said international boundary-line to the easterly boundary of the Province of Manitoba; thence due north along the said easterly boundary of Manitoba to the northeast angle of the said province; thence due west on the north boundary of the said province to the intersection by the said boundary of the westerly shore of Lake Manitoba; thence northerly, following the said westerly shore of the said lake to the easterly terminus thereon of the portage connecting the southerly end of Lake Winnepegosis with the said Lake Manitoba, known as the Meadow Portage; thence westerly, following upon the trail of the said portage to the westerly terminus of the same, being on the easterly shore of the said Lake Winnepegosis; thence northerly, following the line of the said easterly shore of the said lake to the southerly end of the portage, leading from the head of the said lake into Cedar Lake, known as the Cedar or 'Morry Portage; thence northerly, following the trail of the said portage to the north end of the same on the shore of Cedar Lake; thence due north to the northerly limits of Canada; thence easterly, following upon the said northerly limits of Canada to the northerly extrem

ity of Hudson's Bay; thence southerly, following upon the westerly shore of the said Hudson's Bay to the point where it would be intersected by a line drawn due north from the place of beginning, and thence due south on the said last-mentioned line to the said place

of beginning." The estimated expenditures of the Province of Ontario, for the financial year ending December 31, 1877, are as follows: For civil government, $157,374; legislation, $125,750; administration of justice, $276,222.50; education, $557,465; public institutions, maintenance, $437,843; immigration, $53,137.42; agriculture, arts, literary and scientific institutions, $101,850; hospitals and charities, $59,610.90; miscellaneous expenditure, $35,700; unforeseen and unprovided, $50,000; public buildings, $354,427.14; public works, $38,400; colonization roads, $77,090; charges on crown-lands, $91,600; refund account, $104,319.27; services in 1875 (balance), $19,223.87: total, $2,540,223.10, viz.: for current expenditure for 1877, $1,983,752.82; on capital account, $432,927.14; for other purposes, $123,543.14.

DURBIN, JOHN PRICE, D. D., the wellknown pulpit orator and Corresponding Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society, was born in Bourbon County, Kentucky, in 1800; died in New York, October 17, 1876. At the age of fourteen he was apprenticed to a cabinet-maker, and a few years later entered the itinerant ministry of the Methodist Church. He studied at Miami University while preaching at Hamilton, Ohio, graduated at Cincinnati College, and soon after was appointed Professor of Languages in Augusta College, Kentucky. In 1831 he was elected chaplain of the United States Senate, and in 1832 became editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal. In 1834 he was elected President of Dickinson College, at Carlisle, Pa., and during his incumbency made an extensive tour of observation in Europe and the East. As member of the General Conference of 1844 he was a prominent actor in the great contest on slavery which divided the Church. Retiring from his office in 1845, he was pastor of churches in Philadelphia, and was also presiding elder of the Philadelphia District. He was Secretary of the Missionary Society from 1850 to 1872, when he retired in consequence of physical infirmity. To his labors was largely due the establishment of missions in India, Bulgaria,

[graphic]
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »