No. 157.
Mr. Fish to Mr. Pierrepont.
Washington, January 5, 1877.
Sir: By No. 77 from this Department, you were furnished with a copy [Page 287] of the correspondence which has taken place between myself and Sir Edward Thornton, concerning the resumption of extradition under the treaty of 1842, and since that time both governments have preferred demands, and the treaty may now be said to be again in full operation.
After this resumption had been effected, and upon the 26th of December, your No. 81 reached me, treating of the subject, and of the various causes which have led to the course pursued by the British Government.
You state that upon the receipt of my No. 15, under the date of August 5, setting forth the exact facts as to Lawrence’s case, and correcting the misapprehension under which Lord Derby and the authorities in Great Britain had labored as to the prosecutions which had been instituted against him subsequent to his extradition, you were satisfied that extradition would be resumed under the old treaty.
It is probably true that some misapprehensions had existed as to what had actually taken place with reference to Lawrence, and doubtless the explanations made on this point assisted toward their removal, and may have been not wholly without influence in leading to a reconsideration of the position which had been assumed by Great Britain. If so, its operation was not speedy, as the instruction was read to Lord Derby the 23d day of August, and it was not until late in November that the British Government receded from the position it had taken.
You will perceive, also, that in the correspondence which actually led to the resumption of extradition no reference is made by Her Majesty’s Government to this particular point, and I am inclined to think, while this matter may have contributed to the end attained, that Her Majesty’s Government were not satisfied with the general position assumed by them on this question, and therefore did not rest their determination in changing upon so narrow a point. This is, of course, all the more creditable to Lord Derby and to the authorities who have contributed to this end.
In your No. 81 you also state that when Lawrence offered to plead guilty upon the charge of forgery, it was arranged that all other charges should be dismissed; that this arrangement was carried out, and that Lawrence plead guilty to the indictment for forgery, and after that no charges were pending against him. The actual conditions under which Lawrence did plead guilty, I understand to be, that when he plead guilty no charges were actually dismissed, but sentence was suspended against him. But it was understood that, when sentenced, no further penalty than a two years’ sentence should be imposed in all. The matter remains in statu quo, sentence being still suspended and the charges against him not disposed of. Mr. Bliss, from whom information has been sought, agrees in this statement.
I am, &c.,