In the month of February last a requisition was duly made, in pursuance of the provisions of the treaty, by this Government upon that of Great Britain for the surrender of one Ezra D. Winslow, charged with extensive forgeries and the utterance of forged paper, committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, who had sought an asylum and was found within the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and was apprehended in London.  The evidence of the criminality of the fugitive was duly furnished and heard, and, being found sufficient to justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crimes had been committed in Great Britain, he was held and committed for extradition.

Her Majesty’s Government, however, did not deliver up the fugitive in accordance with the terms of the treaty, notwithstanding every requirement thereof had been met on the part of the United States, but, instead of surrendering the fugitive, demanded certain assurances or stipulations not mentioned in the treaty, but foreign to its provisions, as a condition of the performance by Great Britain of her obligations under the treaty.

In a recent communication to the House of Representatives, and in answer to a call from that body for information on this case, I submitted the correspondence which has passed between the two Governments with reference thereto.  It will be found in Executive Document No. 173 of the House of Representatives of the present session, and I respectfully refer thereto for more detailed information bearing on the question.

It appears from the correspondence that the British Government bases its refusal to surrender the fugitive and its demand for stipulations or assurances from this Government on the requirements of a purely domestic enactment of the British Parliament, passed in the year 1870.

This act was brought to the notice of this Government shortly after its enactment, and Her Majesty’s Government was advised that the United States understood it as giving continued effect to the existing engagements under the treaty of 1842 for the extradition of criminals; and with this knowledge on its part, and without dissent from the declared views of the United States as to the unchanged nature of the reciprocal rights and obligations of the two powers under the treaty, Great Britain has continued to make requisitions and to grant surrenders in numerous instances, without suggestion that it was contemplated to depart from the practice under the treaty which has obtained for more than thirty years, until now, for the first time, in this case of Winslow, 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.