Mr. Tree to Mr.
Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Brussels, October 31, 1888.
(Received November 13.)
No. 406.]
Sir: I have the honor to inform you that on the
20th instant, at 10 o’clock in the evening, I received the following
cablegram:
Upon application authorities State of New York, yon are instructed to
request de tention Adolph Sambolino, now under arrest at Antwerp,
pending arrival extradition papers charging forgery.
Rives.
[Page 47]
The same evening, and immediately after the receipt of the cablegram, I
addressed a note to the minister of foreign affairs, requesting the
Government of His Majesty, the King, to cause the proper authorities at
Antwerp to be instructed to detain Sambolino pending the arrival of the
extradition papers. A copy of my note is herewith inclosed.
The next day being Sunday, the Foreign Office was closed, but on Monday
morning, the 22d instant, I called there personally, and saw the
director-general of the department, Mr. Leopold Orban, to whom I repeated
orally the request, showing him at the same time the cablegram. He said the
request would be complied with, and that my note of the 20th instant, on the
subject, had been already sent to the Department of Justice. At the same
time he remarked it was going further than the stipulations of the
extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium, though in 1886
Count d’Arschot, then chargé d’affaires ad interim of
Belgium, had in accordance with instructions from the Belgian minister of
foreign affairs, proposed to our Government, the addition of a clause to the
treaty providing for temporary arrests on information by telegraph received
through the diplomatic representative pending the arrival of the necessary
documents, but that the negotiations were not successful by reason of
objections on the part of our Government.
He said, also, that all other treaties concluded by Belgium contained such a
clause.
I expressed the desire to know the precise points on which the negotiations
with our Government had turned, and also the language of the clause which he
said was contained in other extradition treaties concluded by Belgium. He
said he would give me the information in a few days in writing and,
accordingly, on the 27th instant, I received from the minister of foreign
affairs the note which I herewith inclose.
Although the conversation took place which I have detailed, there was not the
slightest hesitation manifested in granting my request for the detention of
Sambolino, who, I understand, has been under arrest at Antwerp since the
19th instant.
I have also the honor to acknowledge the receipt of cablegram of the 24th
instant, reading as follows:
Sambolino papers forwarded.
Rives.
I am, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 406.]
Mr. Tree to the
Prince de Chimay.
Legation of the United States,
Brussels, October
20, 1888—10 p.m.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to inform
your excellency that I have just this moment received a cable from my
Government directing me, on the application of the authorities of the
State of New York, to request the Government of His Majesty the King to
cause the detention of one Adolph Sambolino, now under arrest at
Antwerp, pending the arrival of extradition papers charging said
Sambolino with the crime of forgery.
I will therefore be extremely thankful if your excellency will cause the
proper authorities of the Government at Antwerp to be instructed as soon
as possible to this effect.
I avail, etc.,
[Page 48]
[Inclosure 2 in No.
406.—Translation.]
Prince de Chimay to
Mr. Tree.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Brussels, October 27,
1888.
Mr. Minister: The consul of the United States
at Antwerp has himself solicited the temporary arrest of the man Adolph
Sambolino on the subject of which your excellency has done mo the honor
to write to me the 20th of this month.
This individual has been detained at Antwerp since the 19th instant.
Without doubt it will not have escaped your excellency that the
convention of the 30th of June, 1882, does not contain any stipulation
determining the conditions under which a temporary arrest may be claimed
from the Belgian Government and reciprocally from the Government of the
United States.
Until now no demand for temporary arrest or extradition had been
formulated by the cabinet of Washington, but it is not the same on our
side.
Until in 1886 all our requests for arrest formulated by way of the
telegraph had been welcomed by the Secretary of State at Washington and
the American judicial authorities.
A change took place then. The Belgian Government having solicited the
temporary arrest of the men, Mandelius and Edelhausen, Mr. Bayard
informed the legation of the King at Washington, on the 2d of August,
1886, that in spite of the fact that the Department of State had in some
preceding cases issued a warrant with a view of arresting fugitive
criminals without waiting for the presentation of the necessary papers
to corroborate the accusation, this manner of proceeding would not be
followed henceforth unless they were expressly
specified in the stipulations of the treaties.
Mr. Bayard added, however:
“The clauses of the article 5270 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States are sufficient (in the absence of similar special stipulations of
the treaty between the United States and Belgium) to cover the case
which we are considering,”
The judge at New York decided otherwise about it.
It was under these conditions that on the 16th of September, 1886, the
Count d’Arschott, then chargé d’affaires ad
interim, of Belgium, proposed, conformably to my instructions,
to regulate the question of temporary arrest by a clause thus
conceived:
“On information by telegraph received through a diplomatic source that a
warrant has been issued by a competent authority for the arrest of a
criminal fugitive charged with one of the crimes, misdemeanors, provided
in article 2 of the convention of the 13th of June, 1882, and to the
article * * * of present additional convention, and on the assurance
coming from the same source, that a demand for the extradition of the
fugitive is on the point of being made conformably to the stipulations
of these conventions each Government will make efforts to procure the
temporary arrest of the individual, and shall hold him during a
reasonable time, which may not exceed two months, to await the
production of the documents on which the request of extradition is
founded.”
The 30th of December, 1886, Mr. Bayard, by a letter of which I have the
honor to transmit herewith a copy to your excellency, expressed to the
minister of His Majesty at Washington the desire to suspend the
negotiations.
Since then the situation has not changed. I am pleased to hope that the
preceding explanation responds to the expectation of your excellency,
who has kindly sought to obtain oral information in the offices of my
department on the rules which regulate temporarily arrest between
Belgium and the United States.
I will add that all other treaties concluded by Belgium contain a clause
touching the temporary arrest, and provide a delay varying from fifteen
days” to three months during which the detention may be maintained while
awaiting the demand of extradition, transmitted through the diplomatic
source.
“In case of urgency,” Article 6 of the convention of the 15th of August,
1874, between Belgium and France, provides that “temporary arrest will
be effected on notice transmitted by mail or telegraph of the existence
of a warrant of arrest, on the condition, however, that this notice
shall be regularly given through diplomatic source to the minister of
foreign affairs of the country where the culprit has taken refuge. The
arrest of the foreigner will take place under the forms and following
the established rules of law of the Government upon which the demand has
been made.”
Article 7 adds “that the foreigner temporarily arrested will be
discharged if within a delay of fifteen days after his arrest he does
not receive notification of one of the documents mentioned in article 5
of the convention;”
Accept, etc.,
[Page 49]
[Inclosure 3 in No. 406.]
Mr. Bayard to Mr.
de Bounder de
Melsbroeck.
[Extract.]
Department of State,
Washington, December 30,
1886.
Sir: Referring to the note of the Count
d’Arschot of the 16th of September last, proposing certain additional
articles to the convention of extradition between the United States and
Belgium, I now have the honor to inform you of the opinion of the
Department upon the modifications and additions suggested.
The first proposal in the note referred to was the substitution for
Article VII of the present treaty of a provision for the arrest of
alleged fugitives on a telegraphic requisition. The proposed substitute,
as you have doubtless observed, is substantially identical with Article
VI of the recently proclaimed extradition treaty with Japan, with the
exception that the article proposed in the note of Count d’Arschot binds
each Government, without any qualifications, to endeavor, upon the
receipt of a requisition by telegraph, to cause the preliminary arrest
of the alleged fugitive, while the treaty with Japan requires this to be
done by each Government “so far as it lawfully may.”
In the United States as well as in Belgium, procedure in extradition is
in great part regulated by statute. At present there is no provision in
the statutory law of the United States for the arrest of alleged
fugitives on telegraphic requisitions; and in view of this fact, it is
not deemed advisable to make, for that purpose, unqualified conventional
engagements whose execution might be attended with inconvenience and
uncertainty. For the present, therefore, it may be expedient to postpone
consideration of the proposed substitute for Article VII of the existing
convention.
Accept, etc.,
