Extradition. mand, after the proper judicial officer had ascertained the existence of some reasonable ground for subjecting the accused to a criminal trial. Those who maintained this doctrine found much difficulty in drawing the line between the more serious crimes to which it was claimed that this rule was applicable, and those of a minor character to which it could not reasonably be sup posed to extend. The general legal opin ion today is that whatever obligation may exist in such a case is an imperfect one, and cannot be insisted upon by the demand ing nation unless there is a treaty stipulation. Nevertheless, in certain cases, extradition without treaty has been allowed by and to the United States. In 1863, Secretary Seward surrendered a notorious criminal to Spain " under the laws of nations and the Constitution of the United States;" and Tweed was given up by Spain in 1876, as a return for the former courtesy. Many similar demands upon the United States have undoubtedly been refused, and I think it is fair to say that custom is against the practice. Whether there are legal objec tions to the practice or not, is an open question. In England, speaking generally, lawyers seem to be in favor of it. In order to carry an extradition treaty into practical effect, domestic legislation is necessary. Under the laws of Congress and the procedure of the courts the following points must be observed : (1) There must be a demand from the supreme political authority of the State de siring the return of the fugitive. (2) There should be an authorization by the President directed to the United States Commissioner to investigate the case. (3) Complaint under oath should be made to a Commissioner by a proper per son, such as the Ambassador of a foreign country, showing the commission of the act
317
(the alleged crime) on which the demand for the surrender is based. (4) There must be a warrant by the Commissioner for the arrest of the accused. (5) The charge must be sustained before the Commissioner by suitable evidence, such, for example, as would justify his trial had the alleged crime taken place here. (6) On the certificate of the Commis sioner that there is probable ground to be lieve that the offense has been committed, and such certificate being satisfactory to the President, the surrender is made to the agent of the demanding country. As is well known, if the proceedings are defective, the accused may be discharged upon a writ of habeas corpus. The United States have extradition treat ies with a large number of foreign countries. The following list is as complete as I have been able to make it. I cannot positively assert, however, that every treaty is in cluded in it. The most important treaties certainly are : — Great Britain, 1842, 1890; France, 1845, 1858, 1893; Germany, 1852; Austria, 1856; Italy, 1868, 1869, 1884; Switzerland, 1850; Holland, 1887; Russia, 1893; Belgium, 1882; Spain, 1877, 1882; Turkey, 1874; Sweden and Norway, 1860, 1893; Mexico, 1861; Japan, 1886; Nica ragua, 1870; Ecuador, 1872; Colombia, 1888; San Salvador, 1870; Haiti, 1864. The above-named treaties cannot be said to be identical, but they are all of the same character, and their scope is about the same. They all include such crimes as murder and forgery, and most of them include robbery, burglary, arson, rape, embezzlement, and the making or circulation of counterfeit money, whether paper or coin. The words here employed refer to the offenses named as understood in the general jurisprudence of the two nations, and they could not be extended to any new statutory crime estab
