211.41/137
The Chargé in Great Britain (Atherton) to the Secretary of
State
London, November 19, 1928.
[Received
December 3.]
No. 3182
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Embassy’s
despatch No. 2199, October 3, 1927,1 relating to the conclusion of a supplementary
extradition convention, and in this connection to forward a copy, in
triplicate, of a Foreign Office note, together with three copies of a
draft treaty2 which
it is proposed might well replace the old treaty provision of 1842 and
the various supplementary conventions which have from time to time been
added thereto.
I have [etc.]
[Enclosure]
The British Acting Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs (Cushendun) to the
American Chargé (Atherton)
[London,] 17 November, 1928.
No. T11803/1669/374
Sir: I have the honour to refer to Mr.
Kellogg’s note of February 26th, 1924 (No. 69)1 proposing the conclusion
of a supplementary extradition convention adding bigamy to the list
of offences made extraditable under the existing treaty arrangements
between this country and the United States, and also to Mr.
Sterling’s subsequent note of March 23rd, 1925 (No. 765)1 proposing that crimes and
offences against the laws for the suppression of the traffic in
narcotics might similarly form the subject of a convention
applicable to the British Empire generally or to Great Britain.
- 2.
- On the receipt of these notes His Majesty’s Government in
Great Britain duly entered into communication with His Majesty’s
Governments in the Dominions in order to ascertain the views of
the latter in
[Page 338]
regard
to the proposals made by the United States Government. In the
course of these communications reference was made to the
possibility of suggesting to the United States Government that
the opportunity might be taken to replace the existing
arrangements on the subject of extradition, dating as far back
as 1842, by a comprehensive treaty more adapted to modern
requirements, and in the more ample form which has been adopted
in the case of all extradition treaties recently concluded with
foreign countries.
- 3.
- As you will be aware, the extradition arrangements between
this country and the United States rest on provisions contained
in Article 10 of the Treaty regarding boundaries which was
signed at Washington on August 9th, 1842,4 together
with those contained in supplementary conventions successively
concluded on July 12th, 1889,5 December
13th, 1900,6 and April 12th 1905.7 There is an agreement of
September 23rd 19098 extending the
operation of those arrangements to certain British protectorates
in Africa, and an agreement of September lst/23rd, 1913,9
extending their operation to the Philippine Islands or Guam and
the State of North Borneo. There are further supplementary
conventions of May 15th 1922,10 and January 8th, 1925,11 adding
certain offences, so far as regards extradition between Canada
and the United States. It appeared therefore that the proposals
made by the United States Government in Mr. Kellogg’s note of
February 26th, 1924, and Mr. Sterling’s note of March 23rd,
1925, might be more conveniently met by the conclusion of a new
treaty of the comprehensive character afforded by the model
draft extradition treaty now used by His Majesty’s Government in
Great Britain in all cases of negotiation with foreign
governments, thus combining the treaty provisions of the past
with others more in accordance with modern conditions.
- 4.
- The preparation of a draft treaty on these lines has however
been somewhat delayed by the need of revising the model draft
extradition treaty habitually used by His Majesty’s Government
in Great Britain in order to bring it into conformity with the
recommendations of the Imperial Conference of 1926.12 This revision
has necessarily occupied some time.
- 5.
- I regret the delay which has thus occurred in answering the
proposals made by the United States Government in the notes
above referred to, but I would now suggest, for the
consideration of that government, that these proposals might in
the circumstances most conveniently find expression in a treaty
of the comprehensive character mentioned, replacing the old
treaty provision of 1842 and the various supplementary
conventions which have from time to time been added thereto.
With this view I have accordingly the honour to transmit to you
copies of a draft treaty13 which has been prepared for the purpose, and
I would ask you to be good enough to submit it to the United
States Government for their consideration.
- 6.
- You will observe that the draft treaty in Article 3 includes
among the list of offences set forth, bigamy, and offences or
attempted offences in connexion with the traffic in dangerous
drugs; that in Article 17 it provides for the accession to the
treaty of His Majesty’s self-governing Dominions and India; that
in Article 19 it is made applicable to certain British
protectorates and mandated territories, while in Article 20
provision is made for its extension to other British
protectorates, protected States and mandated territories; and
that in Article 21 it is provided that the provisions of
existing treaty arrangements shall remain in force in respect of
each Dominion and India, pending their accession to the treaty,
or until replaced by other treaty arrangements. It is understood
in this connexion that His Majesty’s Government in Canada
contemplate the negotiation of a separate treaty applying as
between the United States and Canada only and covering all
offences extraditable as between Canada and the United States. I
desire also to call your attention to Article 2, and to suggest
for the consideration of the United States Government whether a
second paragraph should be added specifying the position of the
Philippine Islands and Hawaii and other overseas territories of
the United States in relation to the treaty.
- 7.
- With respect to the substantive articles of the draft treaty I
would add that these are drawn in accordance with the laws
governing extradition in this country, viz: the Extradition
Acts, 1870–1906, and that as regards the provision of Article 3
(No. 25) relative to offences or attempted offences in connexion
with the traffic in dangerous drugs, this is in the
circumstances necessarily dependent upon the passage of an
amending Act constituting these extraditable offences.
I have [etc.]
(For
Lord Cushendun
)
G. R. Warner
