EXTRADITION {from Lat. ex, out + tradi tio, delivery, from trudere, to give over). The delivery up by one State or nation to another of a fugitive from justice. Strictly speaking, extra dition is a modern praetice, although Hannibal's delivery was stipulated for in a Roman treaty, and more than once Roman citizens were sur rendered to a foreign power. These acts, like many others in ancient, medheval, and early modern times, were confined to those who were considered enemies of the State. The right to deny the privilege of asylum was a prerogative of the sovereign, and sovereigns frequently used it so as best to secure their personal interests. Thus extradition was confined to what we should now- eall political offenses.
It is mainly within the last hundred years that a deeper international comity has developed. Increased intercourse and modern means of trans portation have greatly facilitated flights from justice. while a sense of common interest has done much to diminish international jealousy and distrust. Each decade it has become more evident that the failure of civil justice in one eountry is likely to result unfavorably to its neighbor. No country has ever willingly received the convicts of another, and it was possible that nations with liberal ideas should long fail to perceive that there was no great difference between encourag ing crime and furnishing an asylum for fugitives from justice. 1f, then, there was a common national interest in the punishment of criminals, and if offenders against foreign laws were unde sirable immigrants, extradition was both an advantage and a duty.
The great writers on international law have not. been in harmony on the question as to whether extradition is. in the absence of agree ment, a matter of international obligation. Some of the ablest have argued in the affirmative. but the modern writers, like Bluntschli, Fiore.
Emory. Woolsey. Hall, and Moore. who have so successfully labored to place the law of nations on a sound legal basis, are agreed that the obligation is ;t purely moral one. But the wis
dein of the practice is generally recognized. as is the principle that, owing to the great difference het weep the political systems and penal codes of it was better for 10 give t heir mut nal Idtligation.; in this respect. di finite expression in treaties. Clarke, the lead ing English writer on extradition. states that its history in England begins with the Ashburton Treaty: of 1842 with the United States. Except ing the Jay Treaty of 1794, which contained an article on extradition limited to twelve years, all the other treaties covering this subject made by the United States are of a subsequent date. The two conventions between the United States and Great Britain, in 1842 and 1890, show what offenses two leading nations of to-day consider extraditable. The former covered the crimes of murder, assault with intent to commit murder, piracy, arson, robbery, forgery, and the utterance of forged papers; the latter added voluntary manslaughter, counterfeiting, or altering money, etc., embezzlement, larceny, etc.. fraud by a bailee, banker, etc., perjury or subornation of perjury, rape, abduction. child-stealing, kidnap ing, burglary, etc.. piracy by the law of nations, revolt or conspiracy to revolt by two or more persons on board a ship on the high seas, etc., crimes and offenses against the laws of both countries for the suppression of slavery and slave-trading.
The tendency is to enlarge the list of extradit able crimes, but there are many offenses which, for obvious reasons, cannot properly be included. Such are political crimes and offenses against religion and marriage laws. As the customs laws of each nation are leveled against the interests of all others, it would be absurd to add offenses against them to the number of extraditable crimes. The general rule is that an extraditable crime must be one commonly recognized by civ ilized nations as a malum, in. se, and not merely inalunl prohibit 11716.