The Extradition Controversy.
By Punch
The question lies in a nutshell. Is John—having caught one of Jonathan’s goal-birds, and handed him over to Jonathan under terms of an extradition treaty, on such evidence as would warrant his committal for trial here—bound to bind Jonathan over not to try his goal-bird-in-hand now he has got him, on any but the charge on which John handed him over? “Yes,” maintains Lord Derby. “No,” argues Secretary Fish. And Lords Granville, Kimberley, Hammond, Coleridge and Grey—great lights, diplomatic and legal—say something very like ditto to Mr. Fish. So does Punch, under stress of common sense as well as argument. First catch your rogue; but leave the cooks at home to dress him. The right of political sanctuary once secured, every rogue arrested is a good riddance of bad rubbish to be thankful for, and there an end. Britannia does not bear her ægis to shelter goal-birds. The sooner the rogue-net is reset between John and Jonathan the better. Lord Derby must feel by this time that he has been needlessly solicitous about rascaldom. “Give and take” should be the standing rule between us and319our American Cousin in all things, most of all in the case of each other’s law-breakers. Britannia keeps a political, not a criminal asylum. That must be a bad construction of law or treaty which turns the one into the other. The restoration of the criminal catcher is henceforth only a question of time and terms. The sooner Mr. Pierrepont and Lord Derby set about the better. While honest men remain fallen out, thieves are coming by what is not their own. Who knows but the theft of the “Duchess” may be due to the suspended extradition treaty?—Punch.