The method and prerequisites of extradition may, perhaps, best be shown by a quotation from the Ashburton Treaty. It provides that the two Powers shall, upon mutual requisitions, deliver up to justice all persons charged with the com mission of eertain crimes, "provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of crim inality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and com mitment for trial if the crime or offense had there been committed; and the respective judges and other magistrates of the two governments shall have power, jurisdiction, and authority, upon complaint made under oath. to issue a war rant for the apprehension of the fugitive or per son so charged, that he may he brought before such Judges or other magistrates respectively, to the end that the evidence of such criminality shall be heard and considered; and if. on such hearing, the evidence be deemed sufficient to sus tain the charge, it shall be the duty of the examining judge or magistrate to certify the same to the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for the surrender of such fu gitive." The complaint under oath is commonly made by a consular officer of the State asking for extradition. If all the proceedings are satisfac tory. the President of the United States (in our practice) causes the surrender to be made to the agent of the demanding Power. The expenses are borne by the party making the requisition.
'there are two limitations on the practice of extradition which are worthy of notice. (I) It is an almost universal rule that. a State will not surrender its own citizens to a foreign Power. This is due to the national sentiment that leads each nation to regard its own laws and ad ministration of justice as superior to those of foreign Powers, and to the equally natural de sire to give its own citizens the benefit of those laws. As most civilized States assert a juris diction over their citizens fur crimes committed abroad, this exception is readily admitted as a qua lifieation upon the right of extradition. (2) It is generally regarded as an abuse of the principle of extradition for a State to secure the rendition of a criminal for an extraditable offense, and then to try and punish him for an offense not included in the treaty. The question as to whether a person extradited for one offense may be tried for another has frequently arisen. The authorities give many instances of prosecu tions for other offenses than those named in the requisitions. In 1870 the British Parliament passed a law forbidding the surrender of any fugitive without a positive pledge from the re ceiving State that he should not be tried for any other offense than that specified in the requisition for extradition until after he had had an opportunity of returning to her Majesty's dominions. Although the United States, during
the secretaryship of Hamilton Fish, took serious exception to the application of this law to the The law of extradition between the different States of the United Stales is laid down in Art. IV., sm. 2 of the Constitution, and in a law of Congress of February 1793. The former read,: "A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and he banal in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which ha fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime." The latter provides for the form in which the demand shall be made, whereupon it shall be the duty of the Governor to whom it is addressed to cause the fugitive to be arrested and delivered over to the agent of the other State. The pre requisites of a valid demand are a formal charge that a crime has been committed against the laws of the demanding State, and that the person charged has fled to the State on whose executive the demand is made. Although there have been some striking exceptions, the better opinion is that the Governor on whom the demand is made has no option in the matter, although the alleged offense may not he a"erime in the State where the fugitive has sought an asylum.
The United States has made treaties of ex tradition with the following named countries: famous Winslow case, the principle now receives general recognition.
From the fact that difficulties in regard to extradition are most satisfactorily anticipated by treaties, it should not be inferred that ex tradition has not taken place without them. Spain and other countries having no treaty of extradition with Great Britain have surrendered criminals upon her requisition. The rule in the United States is neither to ask nor to grant extradition in the absence of -a treaty, but this country has not disdained to accept this evidence of international comity from other States—as when Spain of her own volition surrendered the notorious William .11. Tweed to the New York authorities in 1876—and has acted on the prin ciple herself in the surrender of Arguelles to Spain in 1863, and in other cases.
Consult: Moore, Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition (Boston, 1891) ; Hawley, Interstate Extraditions (Detroit, 1890) Spear, Lam of Extraditions, International and Inter state (2d ed., Albany, 1384) ; Rorer, American Interstate Lam (Chicago. 1879) ; and the author ities referred to under INTERNATIONAL LAW.