With regard to sentenced persons, duly authenticated evidence of the sentence convicting them should be presented. In the Oriental Republic of Uruguay the procedure shall be as follows: The Ministry of Foreign Relation shall transmit the above-mentioned documents to the Superior Court of Justice, which, in turn, if it deems that the request for extradition is sufficiently well founded, shall turn it over to the judge having jurisdiction of the crime for execution. The latter functionary shall have authority to order the detention of the criminal, to take his deposition, consider his defense, and weigh the facts presented in accordance with the laws of the country; and if it turns out that the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant his imprisonment, the conditions required by the treaty having been fulfilled, he shall issue the order for his surrender, notifying the fact to the Executive, who thereupon dictates the measures necessary in order that the fugitive may be placed at the disposal of the demanding Government. The expenses incurred in the arrest, detention, examination, and delivery of fugitives under this treaty shall be borne by the State in whose name the extradition is sought. ARTICLE VI. All articles at the time of apprehension in the possession of the person demanded, whether being the proceeds of the crime or offense charged, or being material as evidence in making proof of the crime or offense, shall, so far as practicable in conformity with the laws of the respective countries, be given up when the extradition takes place. Nevertheless, the rights of third parties with respect to such articles shall be duly respected. ARTICLE VII. Extradition may be refused when the penalty or right of action for the crime imputed to the person claimed shall have become barred by limitation according to the laws of the country in which he is seeking refuge. ARTICLE VIII. If the accused or convicted party whose extradition is demanded by one of the high contracting parties in accordance with the present treaty should also be claimed by another or other governments as a result of crimes committed within their respective territories, he shall be delivered to the government of the country in which he shall have committed the gravest crime; provided that the government from which extradition is sought is not bound by treaty to give preference otherwise. ARTICLE IX. If the person claimed should be under trial for a crime or offense committed in the country in which he is seeking refuge, his extradition shall be deferred until the trial he is undergoing is concluded, or until he suffers the penalty imposed upon him. The same shall happen if he is serving a previous sentence at the time his extradition is demanded. ARTICLE X. The obligation to grant extradition shall not in any case extend to the citizens of the two parties, but the executive authority of each shall have power to deliver them up, if, in its discretion, it is deemed proper to do so. ARTICLE XI. The Government of the United States and that of Uruguay agree to notify each other of the result of the trials of all persons surrendered under this treaty. ARTICLE XII. The provisions of the present treaty shall not apply to crimes or offenses committed prior to its date. ARTICLE XIII. The present treaty may be denounced by either of the high contracting parties by giving notice one year in advance. ARTICLE XIV. The present treaty shall be ratified and its ratifications exchanged at as early a day as possible. In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles, both in the English and Spanish languages, and hereunto affixed their seals. Done in duplicate, at the City of Washington this 11th day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five. JOHN HAY And whereas the said Convention, (as amended by the Senate of the United States) has been duly ratified and the ratifications of the two governments were exchanged in the City of Montevideo, on the fourth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and eight; Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof, (as amended) may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington this tenth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, [SEAL.] and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-third. By the President: ALVEY A. ADEE Acting Secretary of State. THEODORE ROOSEVELT VENEZUELA. SEVERING OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND VENEZUELA.1 The Secretary of State to Minister Russell. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 28, 1907. SIR: The Department of State has made the most careful reexamination of the cases hereinafter mentioned, in which American citizens are claiming redress against injustice suffered at the hands of Venezuela. You are instructed to bring these cases again to the attention of the Government of Venezuela and to urge upon that Government the reasons existing in each case for favorable action, as those reasons are now restated with more full and definite knowledge and with greater precision than has been possible heretofore. You will call the attention of the Government of Venezuela to the fact that notwithstanding the long and unbroken friendship manifested by the United States for Venezuela; notwithstanding the repeated occasions upon which the United States has intervened as a friend in need to relieve Venezuela from disagreeable and dangerous complications with other foreign powers; notwithstanding the patience and consideration which has always characterized the action of this Government toward Venezuela, the Government of Venezuela has within the past few years practically confiscated or destroyed all the substantial property interests of Americans in that country. This has been done sometimes in accordance with the forms of law and contrary to the spirit of the law; sometimes without even form of law, by one device or another, with the action of the Government apparently always hostile to American interests, until of the many millions of dollars invested by American citizens in that country practically nothing remains. The first specific claim to be again presented to Venezuela arises from the arbitrary and, it would seem, unlawful expulsion of an American citizen, A. F. Jaurett, who was notified by the Venezuelan authorities on Saturday evening, November 12, 1904, after the closing hours of business, to leave Venezuelan territory. On The reason assigned by the authorities for the expulsion of Mr. Jaurett is that he was notoriously prejudicial to public order. the following morning-that is to say, Sunday-the prefect of police waited upon Mr. Jaurett and formally ordered him to withdraw 1 In this connection reference is made to S. Doc. No. 413, 60th Cong., 1st sess., which is a report of the Secretary of State submitting the correspondence with the Government of Venezuela in relation to pending controversies with that Government concerning wrongs done to American citizens and corporations in that country by the Venezuelan Government. from the territory of Venezuela in 24 hours. Although Mr. Jaurett attempted to obtain a modification of the order, so that he might be able to arrange his affairs, and although the representative of the Government of the United States accompanied and seconded him in this reasonable request, the Venezuelan Government refused to grant such permission. Mr. Jaurett was therefore obliged to quit the country on Monday morning in pursuance of the order of the governing authorities of Venezuela, leaving behind him his property and without being given the opportunity to arrange and set in order his business affairs. The Government of the United States neither questions nor denies the existence of the sovereign right to expel an undesirable resident. It can not be overlooked, however, that such a right is of a very high nature and that the justification must be great and convincing. Otherwise residence in a foreign country would be neither safe nor profitable, for expulsion might at any moment deprive a resident of the legitimate rewards of a lifetime. While, therefore, the existence of the right is not denied, its exercise must be limited. The act is sufficiently harsh in itself. The manner and method of expulsion should not be humiliating, for it is not the purpose to humiliate and inconvenience the resident expelled, but to save the State from dangers resulting from the residence of the undesirable alien. It is not too much to insist that the person to be expelled be given an opportunity to explain the misconduct whereof he is accused, and that he should be given an opportunity to arrange his business affairs in order that expulsion may not necessarily carry with it forfeiture of property. In no case should the expulsion be decreed and executed after closing hours on Saturday, unless the presence of the undesirable resident is so dangerous to the community as to threaten serious consequences to the State by the mere delay over Sunday. It is not too much to require that a government exercising the sovereign right of expulsion should state the reasons of such expulsion to the government of the country whereof the expelled is a subject or citizen, because a nation is injured by an injury to a citizen and an unprovoked assault upon him or insult to him necessarily affects the home government. While this would seem to be the requirement of international courtesy it is likewise the standard prescribed by international law. A citation for these views is needless. However, attention is called to the report made by the late M. RolinJacquemyns to the Institute of International Law on the right of the expulsion of foreigners. If it be borne in mind that this report was presented in answer to a call by the Institute of International Law for an examination of the question in what manner and within what limits governments may exercise the right of expulsion of foreigners, and if it be further remembered that Rolin-Jacquemyns was not only an authority in international law but was himself a minister of state, accustomed to handling intricate questions of international law, it will be at once obvious that the report states not only the theory but the usages and customs of international law on this subject. The right to prohibit the admission into a territory or to exclude from it every individual who is an alien to the political community is a direct consequence of territorial sovereignty. But in regard to the principle of territorial sovereignty there are other principles which tend, not to nullify it but to restrict its exercise, and upon which principles it is desirable that a body of positive rules be established. The first of these principles is that every State forms a part of the community of nations of which the whole makes up humanity. As such, it is not permitted to isolate itself nor to isolate its territory from all contact with the rest of the world. In acting thus it would place itself outside the law and outside the community of nations, and would expose itself to an expropriation in the cause of humanitarian interests. The consequence of this principle is that a State can not interdict in an absolute manner to all strangers access to its territory, nor expel indiscriminately or enmasse all those who are found there. * Besides these general duties toward humanity and toward the community of States, there are some particular duties which are applicable to the exercise of the right of expulsion and which are founded upon the fact that the individual expelled has the double character of a man and of a citizen. In his character as a man he has the right not to be the object of undue severity nor to be injured unjustly in his interests. In his character as a citizen of another State he can claim the protection of his sovereign against these severities of these spoliations. The State which expels, acting thus in virtue of its own sovereignty, is the sole judge of the motives which determine the measure. It does not follow that these motives may be indifferent nor that the right of expulsion can be the pretext of arbitrary violence. (Revue de Droit International, vol. 20, p. 49S.) In concluding his report he states: From the point of view of international law every government of a sovereign State has, as a general rule, if it judges it necessary in the interest of this State the right to admit or not to admit, to expel or not to expel, foreigners who wish to enter or who are found upon its territory, as well as to subject their admission or their residence to the conditions which it judges necessary in the interest of its tranquillity or of its security. The exercise of these different rights is, however, subject to restrictions. Among which he states the following: 1. No State can, without placing itself outside the pale of international law, Interdict in an absolute manner the access of all strangers to its territory nor expel indiscriminately or en masse all those who are found there. * 4. The right of expulsion and the mode of exercise of this right may be regulated by international treaties. 5. But in the absence of treaties the State to which the expelled individual belongs has the right to know the motives of the expulsion, and the communication of these motives can not be refused to it. Moreover, the expulsion ought to take place with all the considerations which are demanded by humanity and the respect for acquired rights. Save in urgent cases, a reasonable time ought to be allowed to the expelled individual to settle his interests. Finally, except in cases of extradition, he ought to be left to choose the point of the frontier from which he prefers to depart the country. The right of a government to protect its citizens in foreign parts against a harsh and unjustified expulsion must be regarded as a settled and fundamental principle of international law. It is no less settled and fundamental that a government may demand satisfaction and indemnity for an expulsion in violation of the requirements of international law. The cases announcing this right are so numerous that their enumeration would be wearisome. It may be permitted, however, to call the attention of the Venezuelan Government to one case, so similar to the case of Mr. Jaurett that it would require a high degree of casuistry to distinguish them. The case in question is that of Boffolo v. Venezuela, and was tried before the Italian and Venezuelan Commission in 1903. The decision of the umpire may be summarized as follows: A State possesses the general right of expulsion; but expulsion should only be resorted to in extreme instances, and must be accomplished in the manner least injurious to the person affected. |