211.41/152
The Ambassador in Great Britain (
Dawes
) to the Secretary of
State
London
, January 20, 1931.
[Received January
30.]
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
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (
Henderson
) to the
American Ambassador (
Dawes
)
[
London
,] 17 January, 1931.
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.
- 2.
- 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.
- 3.
- 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.
- 4.
- 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
