as if it had been acquired “by cession or conquest of territory.” A very exceptional case of exterritoriality is that granted to the pope under a special Italian enactment. (T. Ba.)
EXTORTION (Lat. extorsio, from extorquere, to twist out, to
take away by force), in English law the term applied to the
exaction by public officers of money or money’s worth not due
at all, or in excess of what is due, or before it is due. Such
exaction, unless made in good faith (i.e. in honest mistake as
to the sum properly payable), is a misdemeanour by the common
law and is punishable by fine and (or) imprisonment. Besides
the punishment above stated, an action for twice the value of
the thing extorted lies against officers of the king (1275, 3 Edw. I.
c. 26). There are numerous provisions for the punishment of
particular officers who make illegal exactions or take illegal
fees: e.g. sheriffs and their officers (Sheriffs Act 1887), county
court bailiffs (County Courts Act 1888), clerks of courts of
justice, and gaolers who exact fees from prisoners. A gaoler
is also punishable for detaining the corpse of a prisoner as
security for debt. The term “public officer” is not limited to
offices under the crown; and there are old precedents of criminal
proceedings for extortion against churchwardens, and against
millers and ferrymen who demand tolls in excess of what is
customary under their franchise.
The term extortion is also applied to the exaction of money or money’s worth by menaces of personal violence or by threats to accuse of crime or to publish defamatory matter about another person. These offences fall partly under the head of robbery and partly under blackmail, or what in French is termed chantage.
See Russell on Crimes (6th ed., vol. i. p. 423; vol. iii. p. 348).
EXTRACT (from Lat. extrahere, to draw out), in pharmacy,
the name given to preparations formed by evaporating or concentrating
solutions of active principles; tinctures are solutions
which have not been subjected to any evaporation. “Liquid
extracts” are those of a syrupy consistency, and are generally
prepared by treating the drug with the solvent (water, alcohol,
&c.) and concentrating the solution until it attains the desired
consistency. “Ordinary extracts” are thick, tenacious and
sometimes even dry preparations; they are obtained by evaporating
solutions as obtained above, or the juices expressed from
the plants.
Extraction, in chemical technology, is a process for separating one substance from another by taking advantage of the varying solubility of the components in some chosen solvent. The term “lixiviation” is used when water is the solvent. In laboratory practice all the common solvents are employed. With small quantities it may suffice to shake the substance with the solvent, the mixture being heated if necessary, filter and distil or otherwise remove the solvent from the distillate. For larger quantities continuous extraction is advisable. This may be carried out in many forms of apparatus; one of the most convenient is the Soxhlet extractor, in which the extract siphons into the flask containing the solvent, and so maintains the quantity of available solvent practically constant. Continuous extraction is generally the practice in technology. One of the most important applications is in the fat and gelatine industries.
EXTRADITION (Lat. ex, out, and traditio, handing over),
the surrender of an alleged criminal for trial by a foreign state
where he has taken refuge, to the state against which the alleged
offence has been committed. When a person who has committed
an offence in one country escapes to another, what is the duty
of the latter with regard to him? Should the country of refuge
try him in its own courts according to its own laws, or deliver
him up to the country whose laws he has broken? To the
general question international law gives no certain answer.
Some jurists, Grotius among them, incline to hold that a state
is bound to give up fugitive criminals, but the majority appear
to deny the obligation as a matter of right, and prefer to put
it on the ground of comity. And the universal practice of nations
is to surrender criminals only in consequence of some special
treaty with the country which demands them.
There are two practical difficulties about extradition which have probably prevented the growth of any uniform rule on the subject. One is the variation in the definitions of crime adopted by different countries. The second is the possibility of the process of extradition being employed to get hold of a person who is wanted by his country, not really for a criminal, but for a political offence. In modern states, and more particularly in England, offences of a political character have always been carefully excluded from the operation of the law of extradition.
1. United Kingdom.—The Extradition Acts 1870–1873 (33 & 34 Vict. cc. 62, and 36 & 37 Vict. c. 60) and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 69) deal with different branches of the same subject, the recovery and surrender of fugitive criminals. The Extradition Acts apply in the case of countries with which Great Britain has extradition treaties. The Fugitive Offenders Act applies—(1) as between the United Kingdom and any British possession, (2) as between any two British possessions, and (3) as between the United Kingdom or a British possession and certain foreign countries, such as Turkey and China, in which the crown exercises foreign jurisdiction.
Conditions of Surrender.—In spite of some earlier authorities it has long been settled that in English law there is no power to surrender fugitive criminals to a foreign country without express statutory authority. Such authority is now given by the Extradition Acts 1870–1873, but only in the case of the offences therein specified, and with regard to countries with which an arrangement has been entered into, and to which the acts have been applied by order in council. The acts are further to be applied, subject to such “conditions, exceptions and qualifications as may be deemed expedient” (s. 2); and these conditions, &c., are invariably to be found in the extradition treaty which is set out in the order in council applying the Extradition Acts to a particular country. To support a demand for extradition from Great Britain it is therefore necessary to show that the offence is one of those enumerated in the Extradition Acts, and also in the particular treaty, and that the acts charged amount to the offence according to the laws both of Great Britain and of the state demanding the surrender.
Surrender of Subjects.—A further question arises where a state is called on to surrender one of its own subjects. Some of the treaties, such as those with France and Germany, stipulate that neither contracting party shall surrender its own subjects, and in such cases a British subject cannot be surrendered by his own country. The treaties with Spain, Switzerland and Luxemburg provide for the surrender by Great Britain of her own subjects, but there is no reciprocity. Other treaties, such as those with Austria, Belgium, Russia and the Netherlands, give each party the option of surrendering or refusing to surrender its own subjects in each particular case. Under such treaties British subjects are surrendered unless the secretary of state intervenes to forbid it. Lastly, some treaties, such as that with the United States, contain no restriction of this kind, and the subjects of each power are freely surrendered to the other. Surrender by Great Britain is also subject to the following restrictions contained in s. 3 of the Extradition Act 1870:—(1) that the offence is not of a political character, and the requisition has not been made with a view to try and punish for an offence of a political character; (2) that the prisoner shall not be liable to be tried for any but the specified extradition offences; (3) that he shall not be surrendered until he has been tried and served his sentence for offences committed in Great Britain; and (4) that he shall not be actually given up until fifteen days after his committal for extradition, so as to allow of an application to the courts.
Political Offences.—The question as to what constitutes a political offence is one of some nicety. It was discussed in In re Castioni (1890, 1 Q.B. 149), where it was held, following the opinion of Mr Justice Stephen in his History of the Criminal Law, that to give an offence a political character it must be “incidental to and form part of political disturbances.” Extradition was accordingly refused for homicide committed in the course of an armed rising against the constituted authorities. In the more
