by this Government on that of Great Britain for the surrender of Charles J. Brent, also charged with forgery committed in the United States and found in Great Britain. The evidence of criminality was duly heard and the fugitive committed for extradition.

"A similar stipulation to that demanded in Winslow's case was also asked in Brent's, and was likewise refused.

"It is with extreme regret that I am now called upon to announce to you that Her Majesty's Government has finally released both of these fugitives, Winslow and Brent, and set them at liberty, thus omitting to comply with the provisions and requirements of the Treaty under which the extradition of fugitive criminals is made between the two Governments.

"The position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, cannot but be regarded as the abrogation and annulment of the Article of the Treaty on Extradition.

"Under these circumstances it will not, in my judgment, comport with the dignity or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from that Government under the Treaty.

"It will be a cause of deep regret if a Treaty which has been thus far beneficial in its practical operation, which has worked so well and so efficiently, and which, notwithstanding the exciting and at times violent political disturbances of which both countries have been the scene during its existence, has given rise to no complaints on the part of either Government against either its spirit or its provisions, should be abruptly terminated.

"It has tended to the protection of society and to the general interests of both countries. Its violation or annulment would be a retrograde step in international intercourse.

"I have been auxious and have made the effort to enlarge its scope, and to make a new Treaty which would be a still more efficient agent for the punishment and prevention of crime. At the same time I have felt it my duty to decline to entertain a proposition made by Great Britain, pending its refusal to execute the existing Treaty, to amend it by practically conceding by Treaty the identical conditions which that Government demands under its Act of Parliament. In addition to the impossibility of the United States entering upon negotiations under the menace of an intended violation or a refusal to execute the terms of an existing Treaty, I deemed it unadvisable to treat of only the one amendment proposed by Great Britain, while the United States desires an enlargement of the list of crimes for which extradition may be asked, and other improvements which experience has shown might be embodied in a new Treaty.

"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 I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under the Treaty of 1842.

"Respectfully submitted.

66

Washington, June 20, 1876."

U. S. GRANT.

Mr. Banks.-I move that the Message of the President just read be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and that it be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

Sir E. Thornton to the Earl of Derby.-(Received July 9.) (Extract.) Washington, June 26, 1876. I CALLED upon Mr. Fish at the State Department on the 22nd instant, and, in compliance with your Lordship's instructions, read to him your despatch of the 29th ultimo, and gave him a copy of it.

Mr. Fish remarked that it seemed simply to propose an amendment of the Treaty of 1842, which, he thought was violated and abrogated by the act of Great Britain in refusing to deliver up three fugitives, with regard to whom all the requirements of the Treaty had been performed on the part of the United States; that, in former conversations, he had told me that, while Great Britain was refusing to execute the Treaty, it was wholly out of the question for the United States to entertain any proposition to amend or patch it up, and inquired whether I had read the Message which the President had sent to Congress on the 20th instant, which presented the views and the position of the Government of the United States on the present attitude of the question.

I said that I had certainly read the Message, and that Mr. Fish had informed me that the United States could entertain no proposition to amend the Treaty of 1812, pending the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to surrender the criminals recently in custody, but I could not admit that Great Britain had violated and abrogated the Treaty.

I explained that the part of your Lordship's despatch which attributed to Mr. Fish the expression of willingness on the part of the United States to agree that no person should be surrendered for a political crime without reference to the authorities, who should decide whether the crime be or be not of a political character, was in Consequence of my report by telegraph to that effect, as I believed

that he had actually used that expression in his conversation with me of the 27th ultimo; but that as he had subsequently informed me that he had not done so, but had said that the United States would agree that no person should be “ tried ” (not surrendered ") for a political crime, &c., I had so informed your Lordship in a subsequent despatch sent by the regular mail.

I then alluded to the expediency of further negotiation on the question of extradition, to which Mr. Fish replied that the despatch just read seemed to contemplate only a single amendment to the Treaty of 1842, which it had already been explained could not be entertained; that since the date of the despatch the fugitives had been released, and the practical abrogation of the Treaty had been effected. He inquired whether he was to understand me as proposing to open negotiations for a new Treaty, adding that under the circumstances the United States did not feel disposed to make a proposition for negotiating, but must withhold any expression on their part other than that of regret at the absence of a Treaty of Extradition between the two Governments, until it be in answer to a proposition and request from Great Britain.

I answered that it appeared to me that it had been made evident by several communications from your Lordship, and particularly by the despatch which I had just read to him, that Her Majesty's Government was prepared to negotiate a new Treaty of Extradition. Mr. Fish replied that he was not of that opinion; he thought that the despatch referred either to an amendment to Article X of the Treaty of 1842 or to a continuance of the negotiation which had been carried on some time ago; both of these he considered to be now entirely at an end.

I said I was confident that Her Majesty's Government was very desirous that there should be a Treaty between the two countries, and that I did not doubt that your Lordship would be prepared to instruct me to propose the negotiation of a new one to the United States' Government, but that I heard with regret the terms proposed for such a Treaty, which were not in accordance with our Act of Parliament of 1870. Mr. Fish said that he much feared that it would be difficult to conclude a Treaty on the basis of that Act. In the first place he referred to the second paragraph of section 2 of the Act, which says that "Her Majesty may, by the same or any subsequent Order, limit the operation of the Order, . . and render the operation thereof subject to such conditions, exceptions, and qualifications as may be deemed expedient." Mr. Fish insisted that this paragraph would enable Her Majesty's Government to refuse to comply with the stipulations of a Treaty with the United States in case it should be deemed expedient under some particular circumstances to do so. This I denied, and maintained that the stipulation

of a Treaty could not be altered except by mutual consent. Indeed, I hardly thought it was necessary that the United States' Government should look narrowly into the interpretation of our Act; it was our business to see that the Treaty was in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and the United States could always insist that the stipulations of the Treaty should be carried out.

With regard to the suggestion which he had recently so often made that a surrendered criminal might be tried not only for the crime for which he was surrendered, but for any of and all the other crimes contained in the Extradition Treaty, I said that such a stipulation would not be in accordance with the Act. Mr. Fish said that it was certainly the wish of his Government to make such an agreement, and that he could not see what possible objection there could be to it, or what harm it could do the interests of justice or the rights of society. He cited the instances which he had already referred to in his despatch of the 22nd of May to Colonel Hoffman with regard to murder and manslaughter, or assault with intent to commit murder, and murder. But although Mr. Fish urged the expediency of such an agreement, he did not say, and evidently purposely avoided saying, that the United States' Government would refuse to conclude a Treaty except with such a condition.

Similar remarks were made with regard to the surrender of criminals for political crimes. He argued that it would be quite sufficient that each country should engage that no surrendered criminal should be tried for a political crime. He urged that, although it might not be well to make such a stipulation with some other nations, no harm could come of it between Great Britain and the United States, whose laws and feelings upon the subject are so much alike. And even putting those feelings out of the question, both of them would be so desirous of preserving the Treaty that each would be careful not to violate an agreement upon that subject.

Our conversation was much longer than I have been able to report to your Lordship, but the impression left upon my mind was that the United States' Government really desires to make a new Treaty; that it feels the necessity; and that great pressure will be brought to bear upon the Government by the people, who seem generally to feel that to be without an Extradition Treaty would be a great misfortune. The Earl of Derby.

EDWD. THORNTON.

The Earl of Derby to Mr. Pierrepont.

SIR,
Foreign Office, July 15, 1876.
WITH reference to the letter I had the honour of addressing to

Colonel Hoffman on the 30th ultimo, I have the honour to renew formally the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the negotiation of a new and extended Extradition Treaty.

Requesting to be favoured with an intimation whether you have received authority from your Government to undertake such a negotiation, I have, &c.,

E. Pierrepont, Esq.

DERBY.

Mr. Pierrepont to the Earl of Derby.—(Received July 18.) MY LORD, Legation of the United States, London, July 16, 1876.

WITH reference to the letter of your Lordship dated the 15th instant, and to-day received, relating to the negotiation of an Extradition Treaty, I have the honour to state that, until further instructions from my Government, I do not feel authorized to undertake such negotiation. I have, &c.,

The Earl of Derby.

EDWARDS PIERREPONT.

SIR,

The Earl of Derby to Sir E. Thornton.

Foreign Office, July 19, 1876. THE United States' Minister called upon me this afternoon, and, after premising that he had not been instructed to make any overtures for the conclusion of a new Treaty of Extradition between this country and the United States, he asked, as a personal inquiry from himself, whether Her Majesty's Government had any feeling as regards the place at which negotiations for such a Treaty should be carried on, whether they had any desire that the matter should be discussed in London in preference to Washington, or vice versâ.

It seemed possible, from Mr. Pierrepont putting such a question, that Mr. Fish might himself entertain some preference in regard to this point, and it did not appear to me to be one on which to raise any difficulty.

I therefore at once assured Mr. Pierrepont that we had no feeling whatever on the subject; that if the United States' Government thought it more convenient that the negotiations, the speedy initiation of which seemed so desirable for both countries, should be carried on in London, I had no doubt that he and I would be able to discuss the matter thoroughly and satisfactorily. If, on the other hand, Mr. Fish had a preference for Washington, Her Majesty's Government would be equally satisfied to leave the negotiation in your hands. I am, &c.,

Sir E. Thornton.

DERBY.