The Acting Secretary of State to the British Ambassador.
Washington , August 3, 1906 .
Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 30th ultimo, inquiring whether the Government of the United States intends to demand the extradition of Harry L. Holmes, now held at Montreal for theft, and of your note, No. 156, of the following day’s date, in confirmation and explanation of the telegram.
It appears from your note that Holmes was committed at Montreal on May 21 last for extradition to the United States; that it is now believed by the Canadian authorities that a writ of habeas corpus has been taken out, and that the minister of justice has been informed that the private prosecutor does not intend to press the matter. In these circumstances the Canadian government is desirous to ascertain whether the Government of the United States still intends to demand the extradition of the prisoner.
In reply I beg to state that this department has no record of any requisition having been made upon it for any fugitive under the name of Harry L. Holmes. It would be obliged if the embassy could obtain a short statement of the proceedings that have been taken in this case. Inasmuch as this department appears not to have initiated the proceedings through its consul, it would be glad to know in what manner and by whom the proceedings were instituted. As the Canadian practice is understood by the department, any person representing the demanding government may swear out a complaint before an extradition magistrate and cause the arrest of the fugitive. In cases where an American consul takes action and makes the complaint he does so in pursuance of instructions from this department, but in other cases—as, for instance, where a police officer goes to Canada and makes such complaint—this department is often not advised of the action that has been taken.
The particular purpose of this note is to ascertain just what degree of authority an officer of the latter class must present to the Canadian authorities in order to receive recognition from them. Inquiries of this nature have recently been made of the department, and it would like to be in a position to give an authentic answer.
Another question in connection with extradition practice which sometimes confronts the department is whether it is not necessary, in all cases where the provisional arrest and detention of a fugitive upon telegraphic information is desired in Canada, to make such request through the medium of this department and the proper consular officer in Canada. Under the department’s practice in cases of this kind, it has been considered necessary to instruct our consul in the premises in order to obtain action by the Canadian government. If any other procedure is lawful, the department would be glad to be advised.
I have, etc.,