No. 156.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont.
Washington, August 5, 1876.
Sir: Mr. Hoffman’s dispatch of the 3d of July forwarded to the Department a copy of Lord Derby’s note to him, dated the 30th of June, in which he did me the honor to take into consideration and to offer a reply to mine to Mr. Hoffman, under date of the 22d of May, in regard to the extradition question.
Subsequent to the date of this instruction to Mr. Hoffman of the 22d May, and prior to the date of his lordship’s reply, Her Majesty’s government had discharged from custody the fugitives whose surrender had been demanded of Great Britain by the United States, with all the requirements of the treaty between the two governments providing for the extradition of fugitive criminals. This act of Her Majesty’s government called for the decision of the President of the United States, which was announced in his message to Congress of the 20th of June last, of which you have been given a copy, wherein he stated that 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; that, under the circumstances, it would not, in his 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. The general question has therefore, for the present at least, and while the British government adheres to the position it has taken, become an abstract one, and this Government has no desire, under such circumstances, to prolong a discussion which does not promise to lead to any good result.
I deem it proper, however, to correct an error of fact into which his lordship appears to have fallen.
In my instruction of the 24th of May, alluding to a statement of the home secretary that no question had been raised by him until he was satisfied that Lawrence had been indicted though not arraigned for smuggling, I stated that the indictment against Lawrence for smuggling was found some time before any proceedings were taken for his extradition. In reply thereto, Lord Derby now states, “this may be so, but Lawrence was arrested and held to bail on this indictment for smuggling after his extradition.”
After a careful examination of the question, and upon the authority of a report from the officer particularly charged with the prosecution of Lawrence, which entirely agrees with the information in the possession of the Department of State, it may be stated that since Lawrence [Page 306] arrived in the United States in custody upon the proceedings taken in London for his extradition, he has not been arrested, has not given bail, and has not been arraigned or called upon to plead to the charge of smuggling, nor has he been arrested, arraigned, or called upon to plead to any indictment, or to any charge whatever, not based upon the particular charge of forgery, upon which he was surrendered.
Bail was fixed by the court upon a single indictment based on the forgery on which he was extradited, which was never offered, and to this indictment based on this forgery Lawrence pleaded guilty on the 24th of June.
This plea being entered, he was admitted to bail, and has since been at large pending sentence.
Some error has also arisen in reference to the statement that I informed Sir Edward Thornton that although Lawrence had not been arraigned for any crime other than that for which he was given up, he had given bail to appear for other crimes.
The accomplished minister of Great Britain must have misunderstood what was said on this point, as Lawrence prior to his plea of guilty on the charge for which he was surrendered, and at the date of the alleged conversation, had never given bail upon any charge whatever.
Believing it important that no mistake of fact should exist as to these proceedings, you will, with Lord Derby’s permission, leave with him a copy of this instruction.
I am, &c.,