No. 125.
Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Fish.
Legation of the United States,
London, May 11,
1876.
No. 82.]
Sir: I have the honor to inclose to you copies
of two notes I have received from Lord Derby upon the subject of the
extradition of Winslow.
I have, &c.,
[Page 231]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 82.]
Lord Derby to
Mr. Hoffman.
Foreign Office, May 5, 1876.
Sir: The note which I had the honor to
address to you under yesterday’s date contained the answer of Her
Majesty’s government to the letter which, by direction of your
Government, you addressed to me on the 20th instant. Since my note
was prepared I have received from yon a copy of the dispatch from
Mr. Fish, dated the 31st of March, on which your letter was
founded.
This dispatch has been communicated to Her Majesty’s secretary of
state for the home department, who has requested me to call your
attention to the passage in Mr. Fish’s dispatch in which, alluding
to Lawrence’s case, he says that “although not arraigned on any
other indictment than for the forgery for which he was extradited,
the British home office has raised the question that he may be
possibly tried upon other charges and for other crimes.”
The home secretary wishes to observe upon this, that no question was
raised by him until he was satisfied that Lawrence had been
indicted, although not yet arraigned, for the offense of smuggling,
and that Mr. Fish had signified to Sir E. Thornton that the United
States Government claimed the right to try him for other offenses
than that for which he was surrendered.
Information to this effect was received from Her Majesty’s minister
at Washington on the 28th of November.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure 2 in No. 82.]
Lord Derby to
Mr. Hoffman.
Foreign Office, May 6, 1876.
Sir: I referred to Her Majesty’s secretary
of state for the home department your note of the 3d instant, in
which you called attention to some recent cases of extradition from
Canada, and I have the honor to state to you that I have been
informed, in reply, that the home secretary has nothing to add to
his former opinion upon the case of Winslow, except that he differs
from the opinion of the Canadian judges, in the cases referred to,
and that he would wish your attention to be called to a different
decision in the case of the Lennie mutineers heard yesterday, at the
Old Bailey, where Mr. Justice Brett held that a prisoner delivered
up under the French extradition treaty for murder could not be put
on his trial for being an accessory after the fact.
I beg leave also to refer you to the views already expressed in my
note of the 4th instant, as to the distinction to be drawn in these
cases between that which is within the province of courts and that
which belongs more properly to governments to decide.
I have, &c.,
