It has tended to the protection of society and to the general interests
of both countries. Its violation or annulment would be a retrograde step
in international intercourse.
I have been anxious and have made the effort to enlarge its scope and
to make a new treaty which would be a still more efficient agent for
the punishment and prevention of crime. At the same time, I have felt
it my duty to decline to entertain a proposition made by Great Britain,
pending its refusal to execute the existing treaty, to amend it by
practically conceding by treaty the identical conditions which that
Government demands under its act of Parliament. In addition to the
impossibility of the United States entering upon negotiations under
the menace of an intended violation or a refusal to execute the terms
of an existing treaty I deemed it inadvisable to treat of only the one
amendment proposed by Great Britain while the United States desires an
enlargement of the list of crimes for which extradition may be asked,
and other improvements which experience has shown might be embodied in
a new treaty.
It is for the wisdom of Congress to determine whether the article
of the treaty relating to extradition is to be any longer regarded as
obligatory on the Government of the United States or as forming part
of the supreme law of the land.
Pages:
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762