And let it not be said that a warrant of arrest is too summary a document, and that it does not permit the chamber of indictments to base its judgment upon sufficient information. This objection would seem more valid if Belgian judges had to decide concerning the guilt of accused parties whose extradition was demanded by foreign governments. This is no part of their duty; all that they have to do is to examine whether the offense with which the accused is charged in the document produced, be it a warrant of arrest, writ of transfer, indictment, or sentence, is provided for and made punishable by our laws, and whether it is among the offenses enumerated in the extradition treaty. A warrant of arrest not containing these indications would be irregular, and could not be accepted.

Let us observe, finally, that the introduction of this measure in nowise impairs the guarantees provided by the laws of 1833 and 1868.

Thus the warrant of arrest will first be rendered executory by the council-chamber; the session of the chamber of indictments, when the latter is called upon to give its opinion, is to be public, and a foreigner may enjoy the benefit of counsel.

All these guarantees must evidently remove all fear of an arbitrary or exaggerated enforcement of the law.

The provision of article 4 of the bill was adopted by the section without debate. The framer of the law of 1833 thought little about the transit question, and this is not at all strange; extradition was then considered as a measure of exceptional gravity, principally confined to countries bordering upon each other. Since that time the principle has become general as the relations of nations have become extended, and the number of treaties has been greatly increased.

Of the nineteen conventions which Belgium has with other countries, only four are with countries bordering upon her; in the case of most of the others transit has become a necessity.

It was therefore a necessity that the formalities prescribed by our laws in this matter should be simplified in certain respects.

Transit cannot be considered as a real extradition, nor can a foreigner who thus passes through our country by compulsion be compared to one who comes of his own accord to seek an asylum there under the aegis of its laws.

To prevent his passage through our territory would be opposing a simple measure of execution, without any benefit to the foreigner; it would cause long and costly delays, and would subject our country to inevitable reprisals.

Belgium was therefore deeply interested in the adoption of a mode of procedure which should be free from these difficulties and delays. The law of 1868 provided for such a mode in its third article, and the new bill only supplements that provision.

The proposition to increase from ten to fifteen days the duration of the provisional arrest in the case of a country bordering upon our own, and the authorization to extend this time to three months in the case of countries not in Europe, did not form a subject of discussion in the section; the reasons for this change are given in the statement of motives, and justify it in all points.

A final improvement is introduced in article 12 (new) of the bill. It authorizes compliance with letters rogatory issued by competent authorities in foreign countries, and asking either for a domiciliary visit or the seizure of the corpus delicti or documents which can convict the accused, in the case of one of the acts enumerated in the first article of this law.

The need of this improvement had long been felt; the legitimate complaints made in consequence of damage done to commercial and industrial interests rendered it very

necessary.

Various requests from our judicial anthorities, asking that domiciliary visits and seizures might be made in other countries, have necessarily remained unexecuted on account of the inability of our Government to grant reciprocity when similar requests were addressed to it by those countries.

Our constitution declares that a man's domicile is inviolable, and permits a deviation from this principle only in the cases provided for by the law, and in the form which the law establishes.

No. 4 of article 5 of the law of 1868 authorizes, it is true, the examining magistrate to proceed in accordance with the rules prescribed by articles 87 to 90 of the code of criminal examination, but this article is not applicable in the matter in question, in which it is necessary to proceed to the visit and seizure, independently of any demand for extradition.

It was therefore proper to extend the exception somewhat.

Belgium is interested therein in the same way as foreign powers, for it frequently happens that an accused person takes advantage of the time which precedes his arrest and sends his papers and correspondence across the frontier, such papers being all that can establish the evidence of his guilt and render the examination satisfactory.

In reality, the seizure of embezzled articles or of documents which can convict, is, as remarked in the statement of motives, but a kind of material extradition, which is based upon the same principles as the surrender of the accused.

But, in the same manner as extradition, the execution of letters rogatory requesting domiciliary visits and seizures must be surrounded by strong guarantees, designed to protect the domiciles of Belgian citizens from indiscreet and unwarranted search.

The first of these guarantees should be to restrict the execution of letters rogatory in such matters to those cases in which the law allows extradition to be granted. There will then be no danger of search in political matters or in matters in which the press is concerned; nor will there be any in fiscal matters and others not specially provided for.

A second guarantee inserted in the bill is the following: Letters rogatory from a foreign country must be rendered executory by the council chamber of the tribunal of first instance of the place where the search and seizure are to be made.

A doubt arose in the central section in regard to the proper interpretation of No. 5 of article 12.

The following is the reply of the minister of justice to the inquiry addressed to him on this subject:

"The provision of the concluding portion of article 12 (bill) can by no means result in investing the council chamber with the right to decide civil suits in cases in which the ownership of articles is claimed by a third party. The functions of the council chamber are in such cases purely conservative. It being its duty only to order the surrender of the articles seized to the foreign government, it has no other right except to refuse such surrender when third parties holding the articles, or others, such as unpaid hotel-keepers or tradesmen, are interested in having the seized articles prevented from crossing the frontier.

**The action of civil justice naturally remains reserved in this case, as in the one provided for in the 6th paragraph of article 5 of the law of 1868. The mention of the third parties appearing as claimants was only inserted in the bill for the purpose of formally enabling them to oppose, before the council chamber, the sending of the articles to a foreign country."

This letter having been read to the section, a member proposed to extend to the 6th paragraph of article 5 of the bill the provision of the concluding portion of the 12th article. This addition to the text of article 5, being recommended by the same considerations as those just stated, was approved.

The bill was passed by the central section, all the members present voting in its favor.

ED. WOUTERS,

SCHOLLAERT,

Chairman.

Reporter.

APPENDIX.

Questions asked by the central section.-1st. Does No. 3 of article 1 of the bill include letters of credit and postage-stamps?

Replies of the minister of justice.—"1st. Article 1, No. 3, of the bill, reproducing the text of the corresponding provision of the law of April 5, 1868, is applicable, as is that provision, to forgeries committed in letters of credit, which is evidently comprised in the terms of articles 196 and 197 of the penal code, which are referred to by No. 3, and which provide for the punishment of the crime of forgery and the use of forgeries which have been committed in commercial papers or blank checks or in private letters. (See Parliamentary documents, 1867–68, Appendix to No. 76.)

As to the counterfeiting of postage stamps, it is comprised not only in No. 3, but also in No 23 of article 1. The text thereof is identical with that of the law of April 5, 1-6, which refers to articles 188 and 189 of the penal code, which provide for the punishment of the crime of counterfeiting postage-stamps and other adhesive stamps, and the use of such counterfeit stamps."

24. Why does No. 12 of article 1 only apply to attempts against individual liberty committed by private persons, without referring to the same acts committed by the agents of public authority?

No. 12 of article 1 confines itself in the new law, as in the law of 1868, to attempts against individual liberty committed by private persons, and provided for by articles 434-442 of the penal code, because the same acts committed by agents of the public authority are included among crimes and offenses against the rights guaranteed by the constitution. (Title II, arts. 147 and 148 of the penal code,) and because crimes of this kind might, under certain circumstances, be of a political character."

34. What is the precise meaning of the word de eption in No. 20 of the bill?

3d. The precise meaning of the word deception in No. 20 of the bill is determined by the reference made by the law of 1868, same number, to articles 498-501 of the penal code. This word, therefore, includes deception practiced in regard to the identity, uature, origin, and quantity of things sold, as well as the adulteration of articles of food." Amendment made by the central section:

Art. 5, at the end. "And shall decide the case arising upon the claims of third parties appearing as claimants."

No. 176.]

No. 42.

Mr. Fish to Mr. Jones.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, June 17, 1874.

SIR: I transmit herewith, authenticated under the seal of this Department, a copy of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States, approved on this date, in regard to the termination of the treaty concluded between the United States and the King of the Belgians on the 17th of July, 1858. The President directs me, in compliance with the seventeenth article of that instrument, and with the requirement of the aforesaid resolution, to instruct you to communicate to His Majesty's government a certified copy of the inclosed papers, and formally to notify His Majesty's government, immediately on the receipt of this, that as it is considered to be no longer for the interest of the United States to continue the said treaty in force, it will terminate and be of no further effect at the expiration of twelve months from the date upon which the notice shall be given.

I am, &c.,

HAMILTON FISH.

[Inclosure.]

JOINT RESOLUTION providing for the termination of the treaty between the United States and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, concluded at Washington, July seventeenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight.

Whereas it is provided by the seventeenth article of the treaty between the United States of America on the one part, and His Majesty the King of the Belgians on the other part, concluded at Washington on the seventeenth day of July, anno Domini eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, that "the present treaty shall be in force during ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, and until the expiration of twelve months after either of the high contracting parties shall have announced to the other its intention to terminate the operation thereof, each party reserving to itself the right of making such declaration to the other at the end of the ten years above mentioned, and it is agreed that, after the expiration of the twelve months' prolongation accorded on both sides, this treaty and all its stipulations shall cease to be in force ;" and

Whereas it is no longer for the interest of the United States to continue the said treaty in force: Therefore,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notice be given of the termination of said treaty according to the provisions of the said seventeenth article thereof for such termination, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to communicate such notice to the government of the kingdom of Belgium.

Approved, June 17, 1874.

Brussels, July 1, 1874. (Received July 15.) SIR: In accordance with the instructions contained in your dispatch No. 176, of the 17th of June last, I to-day addressed a note to Count d'Aspremont Lynden giving formal notice of the termination of the treaty concluded between the United States and the King of the Belgians on the 17th of July, 1858, and inclosing at the same time a certified copy of the resolution expressing the sense of Congress on that subject, copies of which I inclose herewith.

This note was delivered by me, at noon to-day, to Count Borchgrave, Chef de Cabinet, Count d'Aspremont being absent from the city.

I took occasion to assure Count de Borchgrave that the notice was only given because it had become necessary for my Government to ab. rogate the fourth and thirteenth articles of the treaty; that these articles in their practical operation, and under the favored-nation clause in the treaties with the Hanseatic republics, work a discrimination against our commercial marine, and in favor of foreign vessels, and are giving considerable trouble; that the United States have no desire to disturb the rest of the treaty, and that should the Belgian government prefer to agree to the abrogation of these articles, leaving the rest of the treaty to stand, I should be authorized to sign a new treaty embracing the other remaining articles.

I have, &c.,

[Inclosure.]

J. R. JONES.

Mr. Jones to Count d'Aspremont Lynden.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
Brussels, July 1, 1874.

SIR: Under instructions from the Government of the United States I have the honor to transmit to your excellency a certified copy of a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States, approved by the President on the 17th of June, 1874, in regard to the termination of the treaty concluded between the United States and His Majesty the King of the Belgians on the 17th of July, 1858.

I have the honor to further inform your excellency that I am directed to notify His Majesty's government that as it is considered to be no longer for the interest of the United States to continue the said treaty in force, it will terminate and be of no further effect, as provided by the terms of the instrument, at the expiration of twelve months from the date of the reception by your excellency of this note.

I pray, &c.,

His Excellency COUNT D'ASPREMONT LYNDEN,

J. R. JONES.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, &c., &c., &c.

No. 44.

Mr. Jones to Mr. Fish.

No. 273.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Brussels, July 7, 1874. (Rec'd July 20.)

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of Count d' Aspremont Lynden's letter in regard to the termination of the treaty between the United States and Belgium of July, 1858.

Very respectfully, &c.,

J. R. JONES.

[Inclosure.-Translation.]

Count d'Aspremont Lynden to Mr. Jones.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
Brussels, July 7,

1874.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the letter which you were pleased to address to me, under date of the 1st instant, to give me notice of the resolution

which the Government of the United States has thought fit to take to annul the treaty of commerce and navigation of July 17, 1858.

You are of opinion, sir, that the term of twelve months which is to follow the notification will begin from the day of the reception by my department of the communication of July 1.

The letter referred to reached me on the same day upon which it was sent.

The government of the King concurs with you, sir, that the treaty above mentioned will cease to have effect on July 1, 1875.

I take, &c.,

(Petropolis,) Rio de Janeiro, February 20, 1873. (Rec'd March 21.) SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your No. 65 with inclosures, in relation to the estate of William T. Harris, who died at Bahia, January, 1852.

In connection with this case I beg to call the attention of the Department to the condition of estates (of American citizens dying here) under Brazilian administration, in pursuance of their claim of exclusive jurisdiction, and notwithstanding the intervention of United States consuls, claiming under the eleventh article of the treaty of 1828.

That treaty made no express provision for administration by consuls. By the eleventh article, which the legation here (Mr. Wise, Mr. Tod, and Mr. Schenck) has contended was not abrogated by the notice (1841) to terminate other parts, (since that article does not relate to commerce or navigation,) the citizens of each party were allowed the right of succession, whether by testament or ab intestato, and might take possession by themselves or others acting for them and dispose of the same, paying only such dues as the inhabitants of the country where the estate was should be subject to pay in like cases.

Under this article, Mr. Schenck, however, claimed the exclusive right of the consul as the proper representative to take possession and administer, and notified the foreign office here (10th January, 1852) that "the United States Government regarded the eleventh article as still in force, not being one of the parts relating to commerce and navigation, and that under it they would insist that the proper representative of any United States citizen dying in Brazil shall succeed, by testament or ab intestato, and shall take possession by themselves or agents, including as such their proper consuls, who, by regulations of the United