Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

more than thirty years, until now, for the first time, in this case of Wins low, it is assumed that under this act of Parliament Her Majesty may require a stipulation or agreement not provided for in the treaty as a condition to the observance by her Government of its treaty obligations toward this country.

This I have felt it my duty emphatically to repel.

In addition to the case of Winslow, requisition was also made by this Government on that of Great Britain for the surrender of Charles J. Brent, also charged with forgery, committed in the United States, and found in Great Britain. The evidence of criminality was duly heard and the fugitive committed for extradition.

A similar stipulation to that demanded in Winslow's case was also asked in Brent's, and was likewise refused.

It is with extreme regret that I am now called upon to announce to you that Her Majesty's Government has finally released both of these fugitives, Winslow and Brent, and set them at liberty, thus omitting to comply with the provisions and requirements of the treaty under which the extradition of fugitive criminals is made between the two Governments.

The position thus taken by the British Government, if adhered to, can not but be regarded as the abrogation and annulment of the article of the treaty on extradition.

Under these circumstances it will not, in my judgment, comport with the dignity or self-respect of this Government to make demands upon that Government for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nor to entertain any requisition of that character from that Government under the treaty.

It will be a cause of deep regret if a treaty which has been thus far beneficial in its practical operation, which has worked so well and so effi. ciently, and which, notwithstanding the exciting and at times violent political disturbances of which both countries have been the scene during its existence, has given rise to no complaints on the part of either Government against either its spirit or its provisions, should be abruptly terminated.

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. Should the attitude of the British Government remain unchanged, I shall not, without an expression of the wish of Congress that I should do so, take any action either in making or granting requisitions for the surrender of fugitive criminals under the treaty of 1842.

Respectfully submitted.

U.S. GRANT.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 8, 1876.

To the Senate of the United States:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a report * from General W. T. Sherman [J. D. Cameron, Secretary of War], together with the most recent reports received from Brigadier-General A. H. Terry, as a response to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, a copy of which is attached to this message. U. S. GRANT.

To the House of Representatives:

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1876.

I transmit herewith, in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st ultimo, a report † from the Secretary of State upon the subject. U. S. GRANT.

To the House of Representatives:

WASHINGTON, July 19, 1876.

I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 1st of April last, on the subject of commercial intercourse with Mexico and Central America. U. S. GRANT.

To the House of Representatives:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 31, 1876.

The act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Gov. ernment for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1877, is so defective in what

*Relating to hostile demonstrations of the Sioux Indians and the disaster to the forces under General Custer.

Stating that no correspondence has taken place with Great Britain relative to the sequestration of the lands and property in New Zealand claimed by William Webster, an American citizen.

it omits to provide for that I can not announce its approval without at the same time pointing out what seems to me to be its defects. It makes but inadequate provision for the service at best, and in some instances fails to make any provision whatever.

Notably among the first class is the reduction in the ordinary annual appropriations for the Revenue-Cutter Service, to the prejudice of the

customs revenue.

The same may be said of the Signal Service, as also the failure to provide for the increased expense devolved upon the mints and assay offices by recent legislation, and thus tending to defeat the objects of that legislation.

Of this class also are public buildings, for the protection, preservation, and completion of which there is no adequate appropriation, while the sum of $100,000 only is appropriated for the repairs of the different navy yards and stations and the preservation of the same, the ordinary and customary appropriations for which are not less than $1,000,000.

A similar reduction is made in the expenses for armories and arsenals. The provision for the ordinary judicial expenses is much less than the estimated amount for that important service, the actual expenditures of the last fiscal year, and the certain demands of the current year.

The provision for the expenses of the surveys of public lands is less than one-half of the usual appropriation for that service and what are understood to be its actual demands.

Reduction in the expenditures for light-houses, beacons, and fog stations is also made in similar proportion.

Of the class for which no appropriation is made, among the most notice. able, perhaps, is that portion of the general expenses of the District of Columbia on behalf of the United States, as appropriated in former years, and the judgments of the Court of Claims. The failure to make a reasonable contribution to the expenses of the nation's capital is an apparen dereliction on the part of the United States and rank injustice to the people here who bear the burdens, while to refuse or neglect to provide for the payment of solemn judgments of its own courts is apparently to repudiate. Of a different character, but as prejudicial to the Treas ury, is the omission to make provision to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to have the rebel archives and records of captured and abandoned property examined and information furnished therefrom for the use of the Government.

Finally, without further specification of detail, it may be said that the act which in its title purports to make provision for a diverse and greatly extended civil service unhappily appropriates an amount not more than 65 per cent of its ordinary demands.

The legislative department establishes and defines the service, and devolves upon the Executive Departments the obligation of submitting annually the needful estimates of expenses of such service. Congress

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

THE EFFECT OF PRESIDENT GRANT'S MESSAGE OF JANUARY 13, 1875

[graphic][merged small][merged small]

The Virginius, an American ship flying the American flag, was seized near Jamaica by a Spanish man-of-war on October 31, 1873, because of the fact that the American vessel was transporting men and arms to aid the Cubans, who at that time were engaged in their Ten Years' War with Spain in an endeavor to throw off Spanish dominion. President Grant demanded from Spain the release of the ship, but the Spanish authorities in Cuba took matters into their own hands while negotiations were still under way, and shot the captain of the Virginius, 36 of its crew, and 12 of its passengers. The news of the massacre created great excitement in the United States, and for a time war with Spain seemed inevitable. Finally, however, the United States admitted that the vessel was flying the American flag illegally, and Spain disclaimed any intention to insult the American flag, and the incident became closed. (See Virginius, The, in Encyclopedic Index.)

« PředchozíPokračovat »