File No. 3294/19–26.
The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador White.
Washington, April 3, 1907.
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Vignaud’s No. 2, of the 8th ultimo, concerning the case of F. L. Jacobs, an American citizen, whose extradition from France was requested by the Argentine Republic. Mr. Vignaud’s dispatch states that the papers submitted by the French Government establish a sufficient charge against Jacobs; that the embassy is of opinion that extradition can not be objected to, and that the French Government has been so advised, with an expression of regret at the decision reached in the case. Mr. Vignaud transmits a copy of his note to this effect to the minister for foreign affairs.
The department considers that the embassy did the utmost that could properly be done in behalf of Mr. Jacobs, and that it could not successfully maintain the position that the fugitive by reason of his American citizenship was exempted from surrender by France to the Argentine Republic.
The circumstances which first called for the department’s interposition were the complaints from the fugitive that he was being unreasonably detained by the police authorities at Marseilles upon extradition process without any request from the Argentine diplomatic or consular representatives and without an opportunity for himself to be heard. It furthermore appeared from a dispatch from [Page 425] Consul-General Skinner that his efforts in the prisoner’s behalf had been unavailing. In view of these reports the department cabled the embassy on January 22 last to state to the French Government that the United States appeared to have as strong a claim upon the French Government for the protection of one of our citizens as the Argentine Government had to obtain his surrender.
Subsequent developments have shown that the extradition proceedings were instituted and sanctioned by the Argentine authorities, and thenceforth the question simply became whether or not the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the requirements of French law. Ambassador McCormick on the 23d ultimo cabled that the papers seemed regular to him and the counsel of the embassy and asked for instructions. The department replied on the 27th ultimo that if the embassy was satisfied with their regularity no objection should be interposed to Jacobs’s surrender. To assist in reaching a determination upon this point the department suggested that if the case were one in which, after examination of the evidence, you would feel warranted in asking for the fugitive’s surrender directly to the United States (provided, of course, that the offense had been committed within the United States and was made extraditable by treaty), you should so represent to the French Government; but as your conclusions after an examination of the evidence were adverse to the fugitive there could be no further objection to the surrender of Mr. Jacobs.
Precisely the same rule obtains in the United States where the surrender of citizens or subjects of a third government is demanded. The diplomatic representative of such government has sometimes made representations to this department with a view to the protection of its national; but the department has always considered that his legitimate functions are limited to safeguarding the fugitive’s rights by observing the course of the proceedings so as to satisfy himself that all the forms of law have been complied with before extradition is granted.
Since the proceedings in the case of Mr. Jacobs are shown by the French minister of foreign affairs to have been within the French law, the offices of our embassy could rightfully go no further than they were extended, and it would have been improper further to oppose the surrender of Mr. Jacobs to the Argentine Government.
I am, etc.,