Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XL.

Extradition Treaties.

1. In the preceding chapter we spoke of treaties generally. We now come to a particular kind of them, called Extradition Treaties, which are of so recent date, that they form a new feature in our diplomacy.* Among our treaties with foreign nations, we find nothing upon this subject farther back than the year 1842, when a treaty of this kind was made between the United States and England, the necessity for which arose out of the fact that persons frequently committed crimes in England, and then fled to the United States (and vice versa) to escape detection and punishment; for they could not be punished in the country to which they fled, inasmuch as it had no jurisdiction of a crime committed in a foreign country. To check this evil, a treaty was made between the two powers, in which they mutually agreed to deliver up, each to the other, any criminal who had perpetrated crimes of a certain kind (which were named in the treaty) in his own country, and afterwards fled to the other. This worked well. Its tendency was to check crime, and at the same time to multiply the chances of detection and punishment.

* DIPLOMACY, the art, science and skill of conducting and m. naging negotiations, treaties and international affairs. It also relates to the customs, usages, and privileges of foreign ministers. All the foreign ministers to any government, are called the diplomatic body.

2. Subsequently, treaties of the same kind were made between the United States and the following coun

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The time is probably not distant, when treaties of this sort will be made between us and all the civilized nations of the world; for the intercourse between us and foreign nations is greater than ever before.

The effect of these international, arrangements is, to render the perpetration of crime more dangerous than it would be if they did not exist. Flight from the country. where the crime was committed was formerly one of the most effectual methods of escaping the penalty. But Extradition Treaties, Atlantic Cables, and land telegraphs, have nearly spoiled this game.

3. An Extradition Treaty then is, a mutual agreement between two nations, to deliver up, each to the other, upon demand, and proper proof of criminalty, such persons as have committed crimes in one country and then fled to the other, that they may be taken back, tried and punished where the offence was committed. But these demands for escaped criminals cannot be sustained if made for any crime whatever. They will only be complied with when the crime is one which is named in the treaty itself. These crimes, upon examination of a number of such treaties, we find to be -1. Murder, or an assault with an intent to

commit murder. 2. Piracy. 3. Arson. 4. Robbery 5. Forgery, or the uttering of forged papers, or the making or circulating counterfeit money, either paper or coin. 6. Rape. 7. Embezzlement, and 9. Burglary.

4. It should be observed that a mere demand for an alleged offender is not sufficient. Proof enough to convince the judge before whom the case is brought must accompany the demand. IIe must be satisfied that the party demanded has committed the alleged offence; when this is done, the judge reports his finding to the Secretary of State, whose duty then is, under his hand and seal of office, to issue the final writ of Extradition; after which the criminal may be taken out of the United States (by force if necessary), and back to the country where he committed the crime, there to be dealt with according to the laws which he had violated. ("The way of the transgressor is hard.")

5. In some of our Extradition Treaties it is expressly stipulated, that neither party (government) shall be bound to surrender its own citizens, or any person for a merely political offence. In others it is agreed that the provisions in the treaty shall not apply to cases where the alleged crime was perpetrated before the treaty was made. This plea, we think, would be held to be a good defence in all cases, whether so stipulated in the treaty or not.

6. The treaties between different nations for the surren der of criminals, are so analogous to one of the provisions contained in our Constitution, that to insert it here will give the reader a clear comprehension of its meaning. It is found in the second section of Article 4, and reads thus

"A person charged in any State, with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."

CHAPTER XLI.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

1. THE Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 8), gives Congress power to declare war, and to grand letters of marque and reprisal. This is an act never to be done, but in time of war. Congress itself, does not issue the letters, but authorizes the President to do so. An act was passed in 1863, expressly giving him this authority. A letter of marque and reprisal may be thus defined.

2. It is a written commission signed and sealed by a competent authority of our nation, giving to the com mander of a private armed vessel, called a privateer, authority to capture the ships and goods belonging to the subjects of another nation, between which nations there is an existing war. This is a general definition. But when such letters are issued by the United States, they are signed by the President and sealed with the seal of the United States. Without such commission, thus signed and sealed, any capture made by the commander of a private vessel, would be piracy. If a capture is made, it must be made according to the laws of war, as recognized by civilized nations, and according to the instructions given by the President. Any conduct on the part of 2 privateer, contrary to these rules, would vitiate his proceedings, and he would not be entitled to the property he had captured.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »