This not to apply to offences previously committed, or to offences of a political character, and neither to be bound to surrender its own citizens or subjects; and one accused of a new offence in the coun-try to which he has fled, not to be surrendered until tried therefor and acquitted or punished. (Treaty of July 3, 1856.) With Mexico: mur-der, including assassination, parricide, infanticide, and poisoning; assault with intent to murder; mutilation; piracy; arson; rape; kidnapping, defining the same to be the taking and carrying away of a free person by force or deception; forgery, including the forging or making or knowingly passing or putting in circulation of counterfeit coin, or bank notes or other paper current as money; embezzlement of public moneys; robbery; burglary and larceny of cattle or other goods or chattels of the value of $25 or more, when committed in the frontier states or territories of the respective countries. This not to apply to offences of a political character, or to persons held as slaves when the offence is charged to have been committed, or to crimes previously committed; and neither party to be obliged to deliver up its own citizens. (Treaty of Dec. 11, 1861.) With Hayti: murder, including assassination, parricide, infanticide, and poisoning; attempt to commit murder; piracy; rape; forging and the counterfeiting of money, and the utterance of forged paper; arson; robbery; embezzlement by public officers or by persons hired or salaried, to the detriment of their employers, when these crimes are subject to infamous punishment.

This not to apply to previous offences, or to citizens of the country on which the demand is made. (Treaty of Nov. 3, 1864.) Besides these, there are conventions for the mutual return of deserters from ships, and treaties under which various Indian tribes bind themselves to surrender offenders to the United States; and the Creeks and Seminoles and the United States agree to a mutual surrender of offenders against their respective laws.-The several treaties with foreign countries require that, when requisi-tion is made for an offender, before the sur-render for extradition a judicial examination should be had, and that the surrender should only be made on such evidence of criminality as would justify the apprehension of the per-son and his commitment for trial where he is found if the offence had been there committed. By acts of congress passed to give effect to the treaties, the hearing is to be had before a federal judge or commissioner, or before a judge of a state court, who, if he finds the proper case established, will certify the fact with the evidence to the secretary of state, that an executive warrant may issue for the surrender to the authorized agent of the foreign government. The surrender cannot be made until the judicial determination shall be had.

In the well known case of Jonathan Robbins, arising under Jay's treaty, the president, while the case was pending before a judge, interfered with his advice and request that the accused should be delivered up, which was done accordingly; but this raised in the country such an outcry, and tended so strongly to the prejudice of the administration, that the like interference with judicial action is not likely again to occur. Nevertheless, the action of the judge is not conclusive on the executive; the one acting for the protection of individual right, while the other is to judge of the international obligation. While the executive cannot order the extradition until it is judicially determined that a prima facie case of guilt is shown, he is not, on the other hand, compelled to issue the warrant of extradition in compliance with the finding of the judge, if in his opinion the case is not within the treaty under which the proceeding is assumed to be taken. Thus, in the noted case of Karl Voght (1873), who was first demanded by Belgium for an offence committed in that kingdom, but whose extradition was refused on the ground that we had no treaty on the subject with that country, and who was subsequently demanded for the same offence by Prussia on the ground of being amenable to its laws as a Prussian subject, the president, on the opinion of the attorney general that the case was not covered by treaty, refused to issue his warrant of extradition, notwithstanding that the district judge before whom he had been brought had determined that a case was made out, and had given the proper certificate.

In this the president followed the judicial decisions in England. The several states, not being at liberty under the constitution to form treaties or conventions with foreign powers, cannot surrender accused persons to foreign powers.-Great Britain has treaties of extradition, besides that with the United States, with France, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Austria (1874). The first, dated Feb. 3, 1843, only embraces murder (including assassination, parricide, infanticide, and poisoning), attempt to murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. That first made with Denmark included only the same four offences, but is now greatly enlarged, and, like those with Italy and Belgium, corresponds in comprehensiveness to the treaty with Germany of 1872. The offences specified in that are: murder; attempt to murder; manslaughter; counterfeiting or altering money, or uttering the same; forgery or the uttering of forged papers, bank notes, or paper money; embezzlement; larceny; obtaining money or goods by false pretences; crimes against the bankrupt laws; fraud by a bailee, banker, agent, factor, trustee, director, member, or public officer of any company when made criminal; rape; abduc-; tion; child stealing; burglary or housebreaking; arson; robbery; threats by letter or otherwise with intent to extort; sinking or destroying a vessel at sea, or attempting to do so; assaults on board a ship on the high seas, with intent to destroy life or to do grievous bodily harm; revolt or conspiracy to revolt on board a ship on the high seas against the authority of the master.

Extradition may take place for participation in any of the crimes specified, provided such participation be punishable by the law of both countries. By statute 33 and 34 Victoria, c. 52, contemplating further treaties of the same nature, it is provided that effect may be given to any such treaty by mere order in council, and without special parliamentary sanction, which otherwise would have been necessary. Most of the European treaties of extradition are very recent, and they are likely soon to be adopted among all Christian nations.