The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State

No. 1573

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s instruction No. 471, August 11, 1930 (File No. 211.41/147), relating to the proposed extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain, the substance of which was immediately brought to the attention of the appropriate British authorities, and to enclose a copy of a Foreign Office note in reply which I have just received.

Respectfully yours,

(For the Ambassador)
Ray Atherton

Counselor of Embassy

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Henderson) to the American Ambassador (Dawes)

No. T 288/46/374

Your Excellency: I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have given careful consideration to your note No. 785 of the 20th August last relative to the proposed Extradition Treaty between this country and the United States.

With regard to Article 3, Item 6, of the draft Treaty, His Majesty’s Government have no objection to accepting in substance the qualification proposed in your note. It would, however, seem desirable to avoid the use of the expression “jurisdiction” in this connexion in view of the terms of Article 1, which refers to the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Parties. His Majesty’s Government would therefore suggest that the words to be inserted at the end of this item should be “if such offence be indictable in the place where the accused is apprehended”, or more simply “if such offence be indictable” as in Item 26.
Though His Majesty’s Government share the view of the United States Government that the term “Procuration” in Item 10 of Article 3 is vague and that definition is desirable, they find some difficulty in accepting the definition proposed by the United States Government or in proposing a satisfactory alternative formula. The following definition, however, is in greater conformity with English law than that proposed in Your Excellency’s note:—“Procuration: that is to [Page 351] say the procuring or transporting of a woman or girl under age, even with her consent, for immoral purposes, or of a woman or girl over age, by fraud, threats, or compulsion, for such purposes with a view in either case to gratifying the passions of another person provided that such crime or offence is punishable by imprisonment for at least one year or by more severe punishment.” I should be glad if Your Excellency would be good enough to inform me whether this modification is acceptable to the United States Government.
His Majesty’s Government are glad to observe that, apart from these two points, agreement appears to have been reached with the United States Government upon the terms of the proposed Treaty, and I venture to express the hope that, the United States Government will find it possible to agree with the alterations in phraseology suggested above.

I have [etc.]

(For the Secretary of State)
G. R. Warner