each nation to regard its own laws and ad- ministration of justice as superior to those of foreign Powers, and to the equally natural de- sire to give its own citizens the benelil • > r those laws. As most civilized States assert a juris diction over their citizens for crimes committed abroad, this exception is readily admitted as a qualification upon the right of extradition. i i i It i- generally regarded as an abuse of the principle of extradition for a State to secure the rendition of a criminal for an extraditable offense, ami then tu try and punish him tor an offense not included in the treaty. The question as to whether a person extradited for one offense may be tried for another has frequently arisen. The authorities give many instances of prosecu- tions for other offenses than those named in the requisitions. In 1870 the British Parliament passed a law forbidding the surrender of any fugitive without a positive pledge from the re- ceiving State that he should not be tried for any other offense than that specified in the requisition for extradition until after he had had an opportunity of returning to her Majesty's dominions. Although the United States, during the secretaryship of Hamilton Fish, took serious exception to the application of this law to the The law of extradition between the different States of the United States is laid down in Art. l '.. sec. ■! oi the ( tons! if u1 ion, and in a la n of Congress of February L2, 1793. Theformei reads: "A person charged in any State with treason, fi lony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in anothei State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime." I he latter provides for the form in which the demand shall be made, whereupon it shall be the duty of the Governor to whom it is addressed to cause the fugitive to be arrested and delivered over to the agenl oi tl ther state. The pre- requisites of a valid demand are a formal eh that a crime has been commit I i the laws of the demanding State, and that the person charged has lied to the State on whose executive the demand is made. Although their iiave been some striking exceptions, the better opinion is that the Governor on whom the demand is made has no option in the matter, although the alleged offense may not be a crime in the State; where the fugitive has sought an asylum. The United States has made treaties of ex- tradition with the following named countries:
 | A table should appear at this position in the text. See Help:Table for formatting instructions. |
COUNTRIES Austria Baden Bavaria... Belgium ".. Bremen.... Dominican Republic.. Ecuador Ira Great Britain . Hanover J Hawaiian Islands.. Haiti Italy § Japan Luxembourg Meeklenburg-Sehwerin.. When concluded July 3, Jan. 30, Sept. 12, Mar. 19, June Ja, Sept. 6, Feb. 8, June 38. Nov. 9. Feb. 2*, Feb. 11). Nov. 19, Aug. 9, July 12, Jan. is. I 20, Nov. 3, Mar. 23, Jan. 21, June 11, Apr. 29, Oct. 29, Nov. 26, 1856 1 861 1853 1874 1882 1863 1867 1872 1848 1845 1868 1898 1794t 1842 1889 1866 1819 1864 1868 1869 1SH4 1886 1883 1853
COUNTRIES Meeklenburg-Strelitz Mexico - Netherlands [| Nicaragua North German Union Oldenburg Orange Free State Ottoman Empire Perufl Prussia and other States of the German- ic Confederation Russia Sau Salvador S.iiaiimburg-Lippe Spain ** Sweden and Norway Swiss (Confederation Two Sicilies ft Venezuela ++ Wiirttemberg When concluded Dec. Dec. May .1 inn- June Feb. Dec. Dec. Aug. Sept. 2, 1853 11, 1861 22, 1880 2, 1NS7 25, 1870 22, 1868 30, 1853 22. 1871 11. 1874 12, 1870 June 16, May 23, -llllM- 7, Jan. 5, Aug. 7, Mar. -J] Nov. 25, Oct. 1 Aug. 27, Oct. 13, July 27, 1852 1S93 1870 1854 1877 1882 I860 1893 1850 1855 1860 1853 1868
- Repfaced by treaty of 1882.
t Expired October 28, 1807. t Terminated by absorption of Hanover by Prussia. § Amended by treaties of 1869 and 1884. 1 Replaced by treaty of 1887.
famous Winslow case, the principle now receives general recognition.
From the fact that difficulties in regard to extradition are most satisfactorily anticipated by treaties, it should not be inferred that ex- tradition has not taken place without them. Spain and other countries having no treaty of extradition with Great Britain have surrendered criminals upon her requisition. The rule in the United States is neither to ask nor to grant extradition in the absence of a treaty, but this country has not disdained to accept this evidence of international comity from other States — as when Spain of her own volition surrendered the notorious William M. Tweed to the New York authorities in 1876 — and has acted on the prin- ciple herself in the surrender of Arguelles to Spain in 1863, and in other cases. U Terminated March 31, 1886. •* Amended by treaty of 1882. ft Replaced by treaty of 1868, with Italy, and its amend- ments.
tt Terminated October 22, 1870. Consult: Moore, Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition (Boston, 1891); Hawley, Interstate Extraditions (Detroit, 1890) : Spear. Law of Extraditions, International and Inter- state (2d ed., Albany, 1884) ; Rorer, American Interstate Law (Chicago, 1879) ; and the author- ities referred to under International Law.
EX'TRALITE. See Explosives.
EXTRAORDINARY RAY. See Light.
EXTRATERRITORIALITY. A principle of international law by which certain classes of persons residing in a foreign country are exempted from its jurisdiction. This immunity extends to sovereigns passing through a foreign country, to diplomatic agents, to a man-of-war in a foreign port, and the like: it finds its reason in the spirit of international comity. and it is
