DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 235 



i Jovemment to Article VI. The only proposal 

 !iiu<l- by the 11 with reference to the article won the 

 addition, at the end of it, of the words "No person 

 shall In- ! Tim-'l to have had an opportunity of re- 

 t ill-ring to the country whence ho was surrendered un- 

 ti. two mouths at least shall have elapsed atter he 

 shall have been set at liberty and free to return;" 

 which was assi-nted to by the British Government 

 Tin- terms i>f tluit convention were, in fact, with one 

 inept' on, virtually agreed upon by both Govern- 

 ments ; that exception was a difference which arose 

 upon Article V'll., relating to political offenses. 



The original article was to the effect that " no ac- 

 cused or convicted person should be surrendered if 

 the offense in respect of which his surrender is de- 

 manded shall be deemed by the party upon whom the 

 demand is made to be of a political character, or if he 

 prove to the satisfaction [ot the police magistrate, or 

 of tin 1 p< >lux' judge, or commissioners named in Article 

 III. of this treaty, or of the court before whom he is 

 brought on habeas corpus, or] of the Secretary of State 

 that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been 

 made with a view to try or to punish him for an of- 

 fense of a political character." 



The United States Government proposed to leave 

 out the words between brackets, and thus restrict 

 the power of deciding as to what was a political of- 

 fense to the Secretary of State alone. 



To this the British Government could not agree, as 

 the effect would have been to deprive an accused of 

 his right to habeas corpus / to take away from him the 

 power of proving at once his right to be- set at liberty 

 and of taking the objection in the first instance before 

 the tribunal before whom he was brought immediate- 

 ly on his arrest. 



This would be contrary to the spirit of English law. 

 entirely apart from the extradition act of 1870 ; would 

 have been a direct blow to the liberties of persons 

 claiming asvlum in this country ; would put it in the 

 power of a Secretary of State to keep an accused per- 

 son in prison who o'ught to have been set at liberty 

 at once, and who ought to have the opportunity given 

 him of claiming his right to be set at liberty at the 

 very first moment that he was charged before any 

 tribunal. 



It was for these reasons that the British Govern- 

 ment declined to accede to the proposal ; and, if the 

 rights of an accused, which were well known and es- 

 tablished in this country long before the extradition 

 act was passed, are secured to him, there is not. as 

 far as her Majesty's Government are aware, any other 

 matter of difference between the two Governments 

 which would prevent that convention from being 



signed at the present moment. 

 It does not, therefore, appear 



, appear how, in any respect, 



the act of 1870 erected an insurmountable barrier in 

 the way of a convention, as alleged in your note. 



It appears, therefore, that the provisions of the ex- 

 tradition act of 1870 and the powers of the British 

 Government under it having thus been clearly brought 

 to the notice of the United States Government, both 

 countries continued, without any question, mutually 

 to surrender persons accused of crimes within the 

 treaty of 1842. 



No case arose in either country, to the knowledge 

 of the British Government, in which any departure 

 was made from the usual practice, and no prisoner 

 was ever, to the knowledge of the British Govern- 

 ment, tried for any offense other than that of which 

 he had been accused in the country 1 surrendering. 



Her Majesty's Government, therefore, contend that 

 they and their predecessors were justified in consider- 

 ing that, by the tacit and implied consent of each 

 country, this practice would be continued, and that it 

 was not necessary to ask for any positive arrangement 

 to secure that object. 



Further correspondence ensned, without ef- 

 fecting any change in the position of the two 

 Sovorniaouts, and on June 20th the President 



sent a message to Congress stating the fact*, 

 and concluding as follows : 



It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine 

 win tlier the article of the treaty relating to extradi- 

 tion is to be any longer regarded a obligatory on the 

 Government of the United States or as forming part of 

 the supreme law of the land. Should the attitude of 

 the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not. 

 without an expression of the wish of Congress that 1 

 should do so, take any action either in making or 

 granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive 

 criminals under the treaty of 1842. 



No action was taken by Congress on the sub- 

 ject, and affairs continued without change until 

 the 27th of October, when Sir Edward Thorn- 

 ton, the British minister at Washington, ad- 

 dressed the following note to Secretary Fish : 



SIB : I have the honor to inform you that I havo 

 received instructions from the Earl of Derby to state 

 to you that her Majesty's Government, having regard 

 to the very serious inconvenience and the great en- 

 couragement of crime which would arise from the con- 

 tinued suspension of the extradition of criminals be- 

 tween the British dominion and the United States, 

 will be prepared, as a temporary measure until a new 

 extradition treaty can be concluded, to put in force all 

 the powers vested in it for the surrender of accused 

 persons to the Government of the United States, under 

 the treaty of 1842, without asking for any engagement 

 as to such persons not being tried in the United States 

 for other than the offenses for which extradition has 

 been demanded. It is, however, to be borne in mind 

 that each Government has the right laid down in the 

 eleventh article of the treaty of 1842, which provides 

 that the eleventh article shall continue in force until 

 one or the other of the parties shall signify its wish to 

 terminate it, and no longer. 



I have, etc., EDWAKD THORNTON. 



This was satisfactory to the United States 

 Government, and President Grant again regard- 

 ed the treaty as operative, hoping before long 

 to conclude a more comprehensive one with the 

 British Government. 



DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. The General Mis- 

 nonary Convention of the Disciples of Christ 

 met at Richmond, Va., October 17th. About 

 two hundred delegates were in attendance, 

 representing thirteen States and the District 

 of Columbia. The Rev. W. K. Pendleton pre- 

 sided. The report of the General Board on 

 Home Missions showed -that the total amount 

 (proximately) of $46,500 had been disbursed 

 by the General and State Boards in this work, 

 and that through its means about 3,250 mem- 

 bers had been added and 21 churches or- 

 ganized. The board had secured, toward the 

 formation of a permanent interest-bearing 

 fund, the sum of $1,893.57; it had also in pro- 

 spective the proceeds of notes to be paid in 

 installments, amounting to $5,707.50 ; of be- 

 quests already made in wills, $21,007.86; of 

 bequests which had been promised to the cor- 

 responding secretary during the year $40,000. 

 A beginning of permanent funds of State con- 

 ventions had been made in Ohio, Indiana, and 

 Illinois. It was estimated that 200 weak con- 

 gregations had been aided during the year. A 

 satisfactory condition as to statistical informa- 

 tion had been attained in Pennsylvania, New 

 York, Ohio, and Nebraska, and the board 



