Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

artistic copyrights," for promoting sanitation and preventing epidemic diseases,' are adhered to by large numbers of states including the United States, and impose duties upon states for the general good of the civilized world. Similar duties are imposed by the Geneva and the Hague conventions, although their rules are largely declaratory of international law and define obligations owed to single states rather than those required for the general good alone. In its most recent interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine the United States appears to have recognized that it must assume certain responsibilities in connection with countries of the Western Hemisphere. The administration of customs duties on several occasions in Latin American countries, for the purpose of paying obligations owed by such countries to European nations, is an illustration of the exercise of this duty; and the activity of the various Pan-American congresses indicates further special duties connected with the affairs of the new world."

These obligations are spoken of as duties of international cooperation,10 and the law regulating them as international administrative law. 11 There has been a great deal of municipal legislation for enforcing these duties, and judicial opinion interpreting them, but as they are not yet duties imposed by international law aside from convention we will not attempt to consider the subject here.

PREVENTION OF CRIME

There is, however, one duty of a similar character which is so habitually practiced and is so well established that it can almost be said to constitute a real duty of international law. That is the duty to aid in the suppression of the more serious crimes. The power of national courts to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction

Convention on Literary and Artistic Copyrights, 1902, Malloy, p. 2058. 'International Sanitary Convention, 1903, Malloy, p. 2066.

See President Roosevelt's Annual Message, Dec. 6, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, xli; Moore's Digest, 6;596.

Act May 24, 1888, Moore's Digest, 6;599-604. Treaties of the Central American Peace Conference, 1907, Malloy, p. 2391-2400. The duty of preserving order in Cuba and Panama is recognized by treaties, Cuba, 1903, p. 362-4, Panama, 1903, art. 23, p. 1356.

10 See Moore's Digest, 2;466-488.

11See P. S. Reinsch, International Unions and their administration, Am. Jour. Int. Law, 1;579-673. (1907): Int. Adm. Law and National Sovereignty, Am. Jour. Int. Law, 3;145, (1909); Public Int. Unions, Boston, 1911; Hershey, Essentials of Int. Pub. Law, p. 5, bibliography, p. 14.

on the high seas for the punishment of pirates is well recognized by international law, and it seems that a positive duty to exercise this authority and suppress piracy is likewise fairly established. A government that does not take adequate measures to suppress piracy may expect other governments to intervene and punish pirates even within its jurisdiction.12 The slave trade conventions have recognized a similar obligation to suppress this commerce. The municipal measures which the United States has taken to perform these duties have been discussed.13

Attempts have been made to conclude international conventions requiring states to prevent the emigration of criminals from their territory and to establish international police bureaus for the detection of criminals, but it can not be said that international law as yet imposes obligations of this character. The duty of punishing its own criminals and giving up criminals seeking asylum in its territory to the state where the crime was committed is sometimes considered a duty of international law,15 and it certainly is a duty very commonly observed. However, the assertion that states are positively required by international law to extradite criminals appears to be erroneous. Extradition is not a duty of international law. 16 In the absence of a treaty, states are not under an obligation to surrender criminals. The duty has, however, been so universally acknowledged by conventional law that a brief consideration of the laws of the United States relating to its enforcement may be appropriate.

EXTRADITION

That no legal obligation to extradite criminals exists in the absence of treaty has been affirmed by courts and political officers of the United States.17 There have, however, been some cases of

12See the Amelia Island case, President Monroe's message, Nov. 17, 1818, Moore's Digest, 1;173: 2;406-408.

13 Supra, pp. 34-36.

14Such efforts have been made especially in reference to the suppression of anarchists; see Moore's Digest, 4;95-96: 2;432-434.

15 See Sir. E. Clarke, A treatise on the Law of Extradition, 4th ed. 1903, ch. 1; Chancellor Kent, In Matter of Washburn, 4 Johns Ch. 105, 107, (N. Y.); Hershey, op. cit., p. 263, note 69.

16 See Moore on Extradition, 1;13-20: Moore's Digest, 4;245.

17 Commonwealth vs. Deacon, 10 S. and R. 125; U. S. vs. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407; Terlinden vs. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 289, (1902); Moore's Digest, 4;245-246.

extradition without treaty, but the act has been described as one dictated by courtesy rather than by legal obligation.18 The international duty recognized by the United States, therefore, is that of obeying the extradition treaties.

(1) Provision for extradition of murderers and forgers was made in the treaty with Great Britain of 1794, in force till 1807.19 The first general extradition provision was in the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 with Great Britain.20 Since that time treaties have been concluded with almost all important countries, and they generally specify that persons indicted for the more serious crimes shall be extradited. Express exclusion is ordinarily made of political offenders.22

21

Although there have been some state laws providing for extradition to foreign governments, 23 the better opinion seems to be that the national government alone has the power to deliver up fugitives from foreign countries. 24 National statutes 25 since 1848 have provided for the apprehension and preliminary trial by federal courts of persons whose extradition is requested, although it has been held that, treaties being law, the courts can perform such functions in the absence of statute.26 The courts have held 18See case of Arguelles, Moore on Extradition, 1;33: Moore's Digest,

4;249.

19 Treaty with Great Britain, 1794-1807, art. 27, Malloy, p. 605.
20 Treaty with Great Britain, 1842, art. 10, Malloy, p. 655.

21 Eighty-four treaties with fifty countries have been concluded. The independent states with which there appear to be no treaties at present are as follows: Roumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Paraguay, Uruguay, China, Persia, Siam, Liberia, Abyssinia. There is no extradition treaty with the German Empire, but treaties are in effect with the North German Union and the folowing states of the empire: Baden, Bavaria, Bremen, Hanover, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Prussia, Schamberg-Lippe, Wurtemburg.

22Ornelas vs. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502, (1896); In re Ezeta. 62 Fed. Rep. 972; Moore's Digest, 4;332-354.

23 Treaty with Mexico, 1861, art. 2; Law of New York, 1822, p. 134, N. Y. Rev. Stat. 1827, declared unconstitutional in People vs. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 321, (1872); Moore on Extradition, 1;53: Moore's Digest, 4;240.

24 Holmes vs. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 579, (1840); Legare, Att. Gen. 3 op. 661, (1841); People vs. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 321, (1872); U. S. vs. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, 414, (1886).

25 Act. Aug. 12, 1848; 9 Stat. 302, act. June 22, 1860, 12 Stat. 83, Rev. Stat. sec. 5270-5280.

26 A number of extradition treaties were concluded before the first statute in 1848, and extraditions were made under them. See The British

that extradition need not be given for offenses not specified in the treaty, but the meaning of the offense named in a treaty will be determined by the law of the country where it was committed.27

(2) Constitutional guarantees require that "due process of law" be given to persons in the territory of the United States before extradition. This necessity is satisfied if evidence sufficient to warrant commitment for trial in the United States28 or to indicate probable guilt29 is forthcoming, even though the party is to be extradited to foreign territory under military occupancy of the United States, where the usual forms of trial guaranteed to inhabitants of the United States may not be had.30 Many countries refuse to extradite their citizens, and a number of treaties to which the United States is a party specifically exempt them, but the United States does not recognize this exemption in the absence of specific treaty provision.

31

33

(3) The actual surrender of the accused is an executive act and is performed by the president through the secretary of state, except in certain treaties with Mexico,32 in which the state authorities along the frontier are given power to surrender accused persons within their jurisdiction. The treaties themselves furnish sufficient authority for the exercise of this power, but it can not be exercised until the evidence has been heard and certification given by the proper judicial authority. It seems that even after such certification the president's power is not merely administrative. He may in his discretion refuse to surrender a Prisoners, I Wood and M. 66; (U. S. C. C., 1845) U. S. vs. Watts, 14 Fed. Rep. 130; U. S. vs. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407; Moore's Digest, 4;270-273. U. S. vs. Robbins, Bees Admr, 266; Matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, (1847). See E. S. Corwin, National Supremacy, N. Y., 1913, p. 277 et. seq.

27This is frequently required by the terms of the treaty. See Benson vs. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 466, (1880); In re Farez, 7 Blatch. 345, Moore's Digest, 4;273-278.

28 Nelson Att. Gen., 4 op. 201, (1843); Moore's Digest, 4;388-391. 29 In re Ezeta, 62 Fed. Rep. 972.

30 Act. June 6, 1900, 31 Stat. 656, providing for extradition to territory under military government, and Neeley vs. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, (1901), upholding the statute, Moore's Digest, 4;287-306.

31 Neeley vs. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, (1901); Moore's Digest, 4;287-306. 32Treaty with Mexico, 1861, art. 2, Malloy, p. 1126.

33 Terlinden vs. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 289, (1902); Moore's Digest, 4;397-399.

34 Cushing, Att. Gen., 6 op. 217, (1853); Nelson, Att. Gen., 4 op. 240, (1843).

person found liable by the courts.35 The ultimate fulfillment of the duty of extradition is therefore a political rather than a legal one according to the law of the United States. Municipal law can not compel the president to deliver criminals, although after action by the courts it is undoubtedly his duty to do so, except in extraordinary cases.

RETURN OF DESERTING SEAMEN

The return of deserting seamen to their vessels is a matter resembling extradition. As in that case, international law imposes no duty in the absence of treaty, 36 but the United States has assumed the obligation in a number of treaties,37 and statutes 38 have provided that deserting seamen may be seized on application of the consul of a foreign government having an appropriate treaty with the United States, and on proof of desertion be delivered up to the consul. It has been held that seamen consigned to vessels being built for a foreign government and still in dry dock are within the meaning of these treaties and statutes.39

At the present time, international law imposes no duties of vindication on states in time of peace, although it requires them to observe treaties and international conventions, imposing new duties of this character upon them. The rapid multiplication of these treaties in recent times and the almost universal acceptance of the principles of some of them indicate that, in certain fields, cooperation and mutual aid have become recognized as essential to the life of civilized nations, and while states may not yet be under a legal obligation to accede to such treaties or the principles they embody, international comity certainly imposes a moral obligation which cannot be long neglected. The rules of municipal law enforcing these moral obligations of cooperation in humanitarian and industrial matters and mutual aid in the suppression of crime are therefore closely related in international importance to like measures enforcing positive legal obligations of international law. The accession to treaties of this kind is a purely political matter and beyond the control of municipal law, but the usual measures for enforcing treaties in the United States apply when once they are concluded.

35 See Moore's Digest, 4;399-400.

36 Tucker vs. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424, 431, 467-469; Cushing Att. Gen. 6 op. 148, 209; Moore on Extradition, sec. 408; Moore's Digest, 4;417-420. 37This provision has been contained in fifty-two treaties with thirtyfive countries.

38 Rev. Stat., 5280; on procedure, see Rev. Stat. sec. 4079-4081.

39 Tucker vs. Alexandroff, 183 U. S. 424.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »