page 158 note 1 See the citations in comment on paragraph (g) of Article 1.

page 158 note 2 Japanese Law does specify a “written request” in Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 11.

page 158 note 3 See the conventions, drafts, treaties and statutes in Appendices III, IV, V and VI.

page 158 note 4 Draft Convention of International Penal and Prison Association of 1931, Art. 22 (Appendix IV, No. 6), expressly calls for a written requisition.

page 158 note 5 Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §220, p. 327; Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. I, §324, p. 586; Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 137 to 139; Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), Vol. V, §§2301 and 2303, pp. 81 and 82.

The Canadian statute permits communication by a minister of the requesting State to “the diplomatic representative of his Majesty in that State” who then communicates with the Canadian Minister of Justice. Art. 20, Appendix VI, No. 4.

In case of colonial possessions, provision is sometimes made for communication of requisition to the Governor of a colony by a consular agent, or if the act is charged to have been committed in a colony, by the Governor of the colony of the requesting State. British Extradition Act, 1870, Art. 17 (Appendix VI, No. 8); Field’s Code, Art. 213 (Appendix IV, No. 1); Moore, op (At., §222, p. 329; Travers, op. cit., §2307, p. 85; United States-British Treaty of 1932, Art. 15 (Appendix VI, No. 8).

page 158 note 6 The only exceptions are (references are to Appendix I): Italy-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 9 (No. 10); Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 9 (No. 12); Hungary-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 7 (No. 61); Italy-Panama, Art. 11 (No. 82). In these treaties, direct communication from Ministry of Justice to Ministry of Justice is substituted.

page 158 note 7 South American Convention of 1889, Art. 30 (Appendix III, No. 2); Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 3); South American Convention of 1911, Art. 6 (Appendix III, No. 4); Bustamante Code, Art. 364 (Appendix III, No. 5); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 5 (Appendix III, No. 6); Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 7); Field’s Code, Art. 211 (Appendix IV, No. 1); Resolutions of Oxford of 1880, Art. 18 (Appendix IV, No. 2); Draft of Rio de Janeiro of 1912, Art. 13 (Appendix IV, No. 3); Travers’ Projet, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 4); Draft of International Law Association of 1928, Art. 8 (Appendix IV, No. 5). Draft of International Penal and Prison Association of 1931, Art. 21 (Appendix IV, No. 6), provides only for direct communication between Ministries of Justice.

A number of extradition statutes specify the diplomatic channel of communication: Argentine, Extradition Law, Aug. 25,1885, Ch. 2, Art. 12 (Appendix VI, No. 1); Brazil, Law No. 2416 of June 28, 1911, V, Art. 8 (Appendix VI, No. 3); Estonia, Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 858; Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11,1922, Part 1, Art. 11; France, Law of March 10, 1927, Art. 9 (Appendix VI, No. 6); Great Britain, Extradition Act, 1870, Art. 7 (Appendix VI, No. 8); Latvia, Code of Crim. Proc, 1926, Art. 858; Lithuania, Penal Code, Ch. 12, Art. 12; Mexico, Extradition Law, May 19, 1897, Art. 12; Panama, Law No. 44 of 1930, Art. 4; Paraguay, Code of Penal Proc, Heading 34, Ch. 2, Art. 597; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, Ch. 2, Sec. 14 (1) (Appendix VI, No. 12); Switzerland, Federal Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 15 (Appendix VI, No. 13); Yugoslavia, Criminal Code of 1927, Art. 490.

page 159 note 1 See, for instance, United States treaties with Austria, Art. 11 (text in Appendix V, No. 1), Venezuela, Art. 11 (Appendix I, No. 13), Czechoslovakia, Art. 11 (Appendix I, No. 31), Germany, Art. 10 (Appendix I, No. 70), Greece, Art. 11 (Appendix I, No. 84); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 5 (Appendix III, No. 6); Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 7); Draft of Rio de Janeiro of 1912, Art. 13 (Appendix IV, No. 3).

page 159 note 2 See, for instance, United States-British Treaty of 1932, Art. 14 (Appendix V, No. 1); Franco-Chilean Treaty of 1860, Art. 1 (Travers, Droit Pénal International, 1922, V, §2306, p. 84); South American Convention of 1889, Art. 30 (Appendix III, No. 2); Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 3); Travers’ Projet, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 4); British Extradition Act, 1870, as amended in 1873, Art. 7, which includes a Consul General within the definition of a diplomatic representative (Appendix VI, No. 8).

page 159 note 3 Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 9 (Appendix I, No. 19); Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 9 (Appendix I, No. 40); France-San Marino, Art. 8 (Appendix I, No. 43); Colombia-Panama. Art. 12 (Appendix I, No. 54); Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 7 (Appendix I, No. 63); South American Convention of 1889, Art. 30 (Appendix III, No. 2); Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 3); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 5 (Appendix III, No. 6); Draft of Rio de Janeiro of 1912. Art. 13 (Appendix IV, No. 3).

page 159 note 4 Italy-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 9 (Appendix I, No. 10); Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 9 (Appendix I, No. 12); Hungary-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 7 (Appendix I, No. 61); Travers would have communication made either by diplomatic agent or directly to the court which will make the examination. Travers’ Projet, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 4).

page 160 note 1 Treaties in Appendix I, having the following numbers: 1, 2, 8, 10, 12,16,17,18,19, 21, 22, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 67, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 91; Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 7 (Appendix III, No. 3); Bustamante Code, Art. 365 (Appendix III, No. 5); Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 5 (Appendix III, No. 6); Draft of Rio de Janeiro of 1912, Art. 13 (Appendix IV, No. 3); Travers’ Projet, Art. 6 (Appendix IV, No. 4); Draft of International Penal and Prison Association, Art. 22 (Appendix IV, No. 6).

See also the following statutes in Appendix VI: Argentine, Art. 12 (No. 1); Sweden, Art. 14 (2) (No. 12); Switzerland, Art. 15 (No. 13).

page 160 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): Finland-Latvia, Art. 8 (No. 21); Finland-Norway, Art. 10 (No. 35); Austria-Sweden, Art. 8 (No. 72); Estonia-Denmark, Art. 9 (No. 77); Latvia-Denmark, Art. 8 (No. 79); Poland-Sweden, Art. 11 (No. 81); Sweden-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6 (No. 88); Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (1) (No. 89).

See also the following statutes in Appendix VI: Sweden, Art. 14 (2) (No. 12); Switzerland, Art. 15 (No. 13).

page 160 note 3 See Article 15 of this Convention.

page 161 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Austria-Hungary-Greece, Art. 9 (No. 3); Estonia-Latvia, Art. 9 (No. 4); Italy-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 9 (No. 10); Finland-Sweden, Art. 10 (No. 17); Hungary-Rumania, Art. 14 (No. 27); Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 9 (No. 40); Belgium-Latvia, Art. 7 (No. 42); Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 7 (No. 69).

page 161 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 2 (No. 8); Bulgaria-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 8 (No. 16); Prance-Latvia, Art. 6 (No. 29); France-San Marino, Art. 8 (No. 43); Colombia-Panama, Art. 12 (No. 54), also Appendix V, No. 7; Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 7 (No. 61); Belgium-Poland, Art. 9 (No. 85), also Appendix V, No. 6; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 7 (No. 91). The multipartite conventions and drafts fall also into this class: see Appendices III and IV (except for Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 7; Travers' Projet, Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 4); see also to same effect the following statutes: Brazil, Art. 8 (Appendix VI, No. 3); France, Art. 9 (Appendix VI, No. 6); Sweden, Art. 8 (Appendix VI, No. 12); Switzerland, Art. 15 (Appendix VI, No. 13).

A number of bipartite treaties require that in offenses against property the amount of damage inflicted or intended shall be set forth (references are to Appendix I): Hungary-Rumania, Art. 14 (No. 27); Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 4 (No. 62); Latvia-Hungary, Art. 8 (No. 64); Austria-Sweden, Art. 8 (No. 72); Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 4 (No. 73); Latvia-Spain, Art. 4 (No. 74); Belgium-Poland, Art. 9 (No. 85), also in Appendix V, No. 6, for text; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 7 (No. 91); the Czechoslovakian treaties (Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 51, 52, 53, 60, 83 and 86).

page 161 note 3 See the bipartite treaties listed in Appendix I.

See the multipartite conventions in Appendix III: No. 2, Art. 30; No. 3, Art. 7; No. 4, Art. 8; No. 5, Art. 365; No. 6, Art. 5; No. 7, Art. 8.

See the multipartite drafts or projects in Appendix IV: No. 3, Art. 13; No. 4, Art. 7; No. 5, Art. 8; No. 6, Art. 22.

See for text of provision in Typical Bipartite Treaties, Appendix V: No. 2, Art. 11; No. 3, Art. 10; No. 4, Art. 9; No. 5, Art. 7; No. 6, Art. 9; No. 7, Art. 12; No. 8, Art. 9.

See for the text of provisions in Selected Statutes, Appendix VI: No. 1, Art. 12; No. 2, Art. 3; No. 3, Art. 8; No. 6, Art. 9; No. 7, Art. 5; No. 9, Art. 2; No. 13, Art. 15; No. 14 (Turkey), Par. B of attached Note.

page 161 note 4 Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 161 note 5 Ibid., No. 8.

page 161 note 6 Appendix V, No. 1.

page 162 note 1 See comment on Articles 17 and Reservations 5 and 6 of Schedule A.

page 162 note 2 The provision usually employed by the United States is as follows:

See the United States treaties listed in Appendix I, and United States-Austria, Art. 11, Appendix V, No. 2.

The British article is as follows:

See the British treaties listed in Appendix I.

page 162 note 3 See France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 7 (Appendix V, No. 5); Belgium-Poland, Art. 9 (Appendix V, No. 6); Colombia-Panama, Art. 12 (Appendix V, No. 7), which says that “the aforementioned documents shall be transmitted in the form prescribed by the laws of the applicant State.”

page 162 note 4 United States, Statute of Aug. 3, 1889 (Appendix VI, No. 15). See In re Henrich (1867), 5 Blatchford’s Reports, 414; In re McPhun (1887), 24 Blatchford’s Reports, 254; Luis Oteiza y Cortes v. Jacobus (1890), 136 United States Reports, 330; Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §§309 to 336, pp. 465 to 515. The instructions of the United States Department of State on the subject of authentication of documents to be sent abroad are as follows (for full text of these instructions see Appendix VI, No. 15):

Great Britain, Extradition Act, 1870, Art. 16 (Appendix VI, No. 8); Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 97.

Canada, Extradition Act, Art. 17 (Appendix VI, No. 4).

Argentina, Extradition Law, Art. 12 (Appendix VI, No. 1), calls for original document or an “authenticated” copy, without definition of “authenticated.” Supreme Court of Argentine held that an instrument transmitted by a foreign government, through diplomatic channel, and through the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the requested State, must be regarded as authentic without further requirements. Leonardo Castanzo et Alia Case (1927), 150 Fallos de la Corte Suprema, 80; 26 Jurisprudencia Argentina, 865; Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1927–28, p. 346.

page 163 note 1 See, for example (references are to Appendix V): Brazil-Italy, Art. 9 (No. 4); France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5 (No. 5); Belgium-Poland, Art. 9 (No. 6): Colombia-Panama, Art. 12 (No. 7).

Such provision is contained in all the multipartite conventions except the Treaty of Amiens (references are to Appendix III): No. 2, Art. 30; No. 3, Art. 7; No. 4, Art. 8; No. 5, Art. 365; No. 6, Art. 5; No. 7, Art. 8 declares that “provisions of the penal code which are applicable thereto must be indicated.”

See also model drafts (references are to Appendix IV): No. 3, Art. 13; No. 4, Art. 7; No. 6, Art. 22.

page 163 note 2 Argentine, Extradition Law, Aug. 25, 1885, Oh. 2, Art. 12 (4) (Appendix VI, No. 1); Brazil, Law No. 2416, June 28,1911, V, Art. 8 (Appendix VI, No. 3); Ecuador, Extradition Law, Oct. 18,1921, Art. 49 (4); Estonia, Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 852 (13); France, Law of March 10, 1927, Art. 9 (Appendix VI, No. 6); Latvia, Code of Crim. Proc. 1926, Art. 859; Lithuania, Penal Code, Ch. 12, Art. 13; Mexico, Extradition Law, May 19, 1897, Art. 16 (2); Panama, Law No. 44 of 1930, Art. 4 (3); Paraguay, Code of Penal Proc, Heading 34, Ch. 2, Art. 597 (2); Peru, Extradition Law, Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 8 (3); Switzerland, Federal Extradition Law, Jan. 22, 1892, Art. 15 (Appendix VI, No. 13); Yugoslavia, Criminal Code of 1929, Art. 490.

page 163 note 3 Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §§344 to 346, pp. 525–529; Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 101, 152.

page 163 note 4 Cf. statement in Piggott, op. cit., p. 229, that “the magistrate cannot enquire into foreign law. …”

page 164 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Estonia-Latvia, Art. 12 (No. 4); Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 12 (No. 5); Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 13 (No. 6); Hungary-Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Art. 16 (No. 61); Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 18 (No. 73); Latvia-Spain, Art. 18 (No. 74). The Czechoslovakian treaties with Rumania. Art. 17 (No. 36); Estonia, Art. 18 (No. 37); Latvia, Art. 18 (No. 38); Bulgaria, Art. 18 (No. 39); Greece, Art. 18 (No. 50); Spain, Art. 18 (No. 51); Portugal, Art. 18 (No. 52); Prance, Art. 22 (No. 60); Lithuania, Art. 18 (No. 83); Denmark, Art. 18 (No. 89).

See also Draft of International Penal and Prison Association, Art. 22 (Appendix IV, No. 6).

page 164 note 2 Five statutes provide that property, “if demanded” and subject to certain limitations, will be delivered if the extradition is found to be permissible:

Estonia, Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 852 (11); Germany, Extradition Law, Dec. 23, 1929, Art. 34 (1) (Appendix VI, No. 8); Latvia, Code of Crim. Proc. 1926, Art. 857; Lithuania, Penal Code, Ch. 12, Art. 11; Mexico, Extradition Law, May 19, 1897, Art. 15.

Two statutes contain provision for the seizure of property of evidential value, or the surrender of which might possibly be demanded (“pourrait être réclamée—Finland), or may be assumed to be demanded (Sweden) by the plaintiff:

Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11, 1922, Part 2, Art. 19; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, Ch. 2, Sec. 26 (Appendix VI, No. 13).

page 165 note 1 Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 165 note 2 Ibid., No. 3.

page 165 note 3 Ibid., No. 6.

page 166 note 1 See the German-Turkish treaty of 1930, Art. 10, Appendix V, No. 3, and the Swedish Extradition Law, Art. 14, Appendix VI, No. 12, which provide for an invitation by the requested State addressed to the requesting State to furnish necessary information not already received. No time-limit is set in these documents.

page 166 note 2 E.g. (references are to Appendix V): United States-Great Britain, No. 1; United States-Austria, No. 2; Germany-Turkey, No. 3; Belgium-Poland, No. 6; Colombia-Panama, No. 8.

page 166 note 3 E.g. (references are to Appendix I): Latvia, Art. 9, No. 20; Finland, Art. 9, No. 25; Czechoslovakia, Art. 9, No. 28; Estonia, Art. 9, No. 30; Lithuania, Art. 9, No. 46; Albania, Art. 9, No. 70; Iraq, Art. 10, No. 93.

page 166 note 4 See the treaties listed in Appendix I.

page 166 note 5 E.g. (references are to Appendix I): Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 14, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 14, No. 27; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 8, No. 44; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 9, No. 61; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 8, No. 65; Poland-Sweden, Art. 12, No. 81; Italy-Brazil, Art. 10, No. 87; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 8, No. 91.

page 166 note 6 Art. 8, Appendix V, No. 5.

page 166 note 7 Art. 10, Appendix V, No. 4.

page 167 note 1 Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 167 note 2 Ibid., No. 7.

page 167 note 3 Art. 25, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 167 note 4 See for example (references are to Appendix VI): Argentine, Art. 15, No. 1; France, Art. 10, No. 6; Germany, Art. 10 (1), No. 7; British Act of 1870, Art. 9, No. 8; Greece, Art. 12, No. 9; Sweden, Art. 16, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 15, No. 13; United States, Revised Statutes sec. 5270, No. 15.

page 167 note 5 Cf. the French Extradition Law of 1927, Art. 10 (Appendix VI, No. 6), according to which the initiative is taken by the Minister of Justice; the British Extradition Law 1870, Arts. 7 and 8 (Appendix VI, No. 8), according to which a Secretary of State may require a police magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest, or a police magistrate or justice of the peace may issue such warrant upon an information or complaint; section 5270 of the United States Revised Statutes (Appendix VI, No. 15) which gives the judicial officers there named authority to act upon complaint made to them, though this procedure may be varied by specific mandatory provisions in treaties calling for an executive mandate (See Moore, Extradition (1891), I, Chap. X, pp. 357 to 394).

page 167 note 6 A State has authority to arrest for extradition a person who is upon a foreign ship in a port of the requested State, though by consular convention foreign consuls have jurisdiction to maintain order on their respective vessels in such port and to settle disputes there. In re Doelitzsch (1923), Foro Italiano, II (1924), p. 68.

page 168 note 1 Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 168 note 2 That subject is dealt with in §§1015 and 1016 of the United States Revised Statutes, which follow a section which provides the manner of arrest of any person “for any crime or offense against the United States.” These provisions as to bail are:

Sec. 1015. Bail shall be admitted upon all arrests in criminal cases where the offense is not punishable by death and in such cases it may be taken by any of the persons authorized by the preceding section to arrest and imprison offender.

Sec. 1016. Bail may be admitted upon all arrests in criminal cases where the punishment may be death; but in such cases it shall be taken only by the Supreme Court, or a Circuit Court, or by a justice of the Supreme Court, a circuit judge, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, having regard to the nature and circumstance of the offense, and of the evidence, and to the usages of law.

page 168 note 3 In re Carrier (District of Colorado, 1893), 57 Federal Reports 578; In re Wright (Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 1903), 123 Federal Reports 463.

But at common law, admission to bail is regarded as inherent in judicial power. Regina v. Spilsbury, [1898] 2 Queens Bench Report, 615; ex parte Bridewell (1897), 57 Mississippi Reports, 39. The Federal courts have recognized their possession of such other inherent powers as authority to control their process and to punish for contempt. Ex parte Robinson (1873), 19 Wall. (U. S.), 505, 513; Gumbel v. Pitkin (1888), 124 U. S. 131; Michaelson v. United States (1924), 266 U. S. 65; and in deportation cases they have exercised the power of admitting to bail without statutory authority. In re Ah Tai (1903), 125 Fed. Rep., 795; United States v. Yee Yet (1911), 192 Fed. Rep. 577; contra, United States v. Curran (1924), 297 Fed. Rep. 946.

page 168 note 4 Wright v. Henkel (1903), 190 U. S., 40.

page 169 note 1 United States ex rel. McNamara v. Henkel (1912), 46 P. (2), 84.

page 169 note 2 In re Gannon (1928), 27 (2d), 362.

page 169 note 3 In re Mitchell (1909), 171 Fed. Rep. 289.

page 169 note 4 In re Klein (1930), 46 F. (2d), 85.

page 169 note 5 Enlargement on bail was also allowed pending extradition proceedings In re Keene’s Extradition (1934), 6 Federal Supplement, 308.

See Editorial comment in 4 American Journal of International Law (1910), pp. 422 to 430.

page 169 note 6 (1903), 190 U. S., 40 at 62.

page 169 note 7 Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 169 note 8 [1898] 2 Queens Bench Reports, 615.

page 169 note 9 44 and 45 Vict., c. 69, s. 5.

page 169 note 10 Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 94 to 96.

page 169 note 11 Biron and Chalmers, Extradition (1903), p. 50.

page 170 note 1 Rex v. Phillips (1922), 126 Law Times Reports, 113.

page 170 note 2 Halsbury, Laws of England (1909), XIV, §956, p. 414.

page 170 note 3 Appendix VI, No. 4.

page 170 note 4 Re Stern (1903), 7 Canadian Criminal Cases, 191.

page 170 note 5 United States v. Weiss (1904), 8 Canadian Criminal Cases, 62.

page 170 note 6 (1905), 9 Canadian Criminal Cases, 255.

page 170 note 7 Re Gifford, [1930] 1 Dominion Law Reports, 800, 802.

page 170 note 8 (1902), Canadian Criminal Cases, 538.

page 170 note 9 See Puente, Julius I., “Principles of International Extradition in Latin America,” 28 Mich. Law Rev. (1930), 665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 171 note 1 Codigo de Procedimiento Penal, Articulo 698.

page 171 note 2 In re Extradition of Andres Blott (1895), 9 Fattos de la Corte Suprema, 66, 4^a ser.

page 171 note 3 Law concerning Foreigners, Extradition and Naturalization, Oct. 18, 1921.

page 171 note 4 Codigo Administrative, Art. 2100.

page 171 note 5 Law XXXIII of 1896, Ch. XXIV.

page 171 note 6 Article 663.

page 171 note 7 For example, the treaty between Belgium and Great Britain, Oct. 29, 1901, Art. III, Piggott, Extradition (1910), App. II, 40. The treaty signed by the United States with Belgium, Oct. 26, 1901, 1 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 106, does not contain this clause.

page 171 note 8 Report From the Select Committee [of the House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), par. 331, p. 19.

page 172 note 1 Report From the Select Committee [of (he House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), par. 1184, p. 61. Mr. Mullens points out (pars. 1199 to 1204, p. 62) that other means of detaining had sometimes been resorted to in the absence of arrangements for provisional arrest.

page 172 note 2 Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 172 note 3 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 150.

page 172 note 4 Ibid., pp. 150 to 152.

page 172 note 5 Ibid., pp. 153 to 155.

page 172 note 6 Ibid., p. 155. See also Circvlaire du Ministre de la Justice du 30 Juillet 1872, ibid., p. 422.

page 172 note 7 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §275, pp. 406 and 407, and see §§270 to 274, pp. 400 to 406.

page 172 note 8 Ibid., §273, pp. 404 and 405. The language of Art. 12, inserted by convention of 1882 in our extradition treaty of 1877 with Spain, seems to suggest the regularization of an existing practice (2 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1676–77):

“If, when a person accused shall have been arrested in virtue of the mandate or preliminary warrants of arrest, issued by the competent authority as provided in Article XI, hereof, and been brought before a judge or a magistrate to the end of the evidence of his or her guilt being heard and examined as hereinbefore provided, it shall appear that the mandate or preliminary warrant of arrest has been issued in pursuance of a request or declaration received by telegraph from the government asking for the extradition, it shall be competent for the judge or magistrate at his discretion to hold the accused for a period not exceeding twenty-five days, so that the demanding government may have opportunity to lay before such judge or magistrate legal evidence of the guilt of the accused; and if, at the expiration of said period of twenty-five days, such legal evidence shall not have been produced before such judge or magistrate, the person arrested shall be released; provided that the examination of the charges preferred against such accused person shall not be actually going on.”

By 1887, when we began to write provisions for provisional arrest into our treaties, the provisions took the following form (2 Ibid., 1527):

“It shall be lawful for any competent judicial authority of the United States, upon production of a certificate issued by the Secretary of State, stating that request has been made by the Imperial Government of Russia for the provisional arrest of a person convicted or accused of the commission therein of a crime or offense extraditable under this Convention, and upon complaint, duly made, that such crime or offense has been so committed, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of such person. But if the formal requisition for surrender, with the formal proofs hereinbefore mentioned, be not made as aforesaid by the diplomatic agent of the demanding Government, or, in his absence, by the competent consular officer, within forty days from the date of the commitment of the fugitive, the prisoner shall be discharged from custody.”

page 173 note 1 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 173 note 2 Ibid., No. 2.

page 173 note 3 Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3; South American Convention of 1911, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 4; Bustamante Code, 1928, Art. 366, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention, 1933, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention, 1934, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 173 note 4 Field’s Code, 1876, Art. 217, Appendix IV, No. 1; Rio de Janeiro Draft, 1912, Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 3; Travers’ Draft, 1922, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 4; International Law Association Draft, 1928, Art. 12, Appendix IV, No. 5; International Penal and Prison Association Draft, Art. 26, Appendix IV, No. 6. The Resolutions of Oxford, 1880, Appendix IV, No. 2, did not deal with this subject.

page 173 note 5 See the list of these treaties in Appendix I, and the group of typical bipartite treaties in Appendix V.

page 173 note 6 See the group of typical extradition statutes in Appendix VI.

page 173 note 7 In the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3, such a promise was called for expressly.

page 173 note 8 See Article 16 of this Convention.

page 174 note 1 Piggott, Extradition (1910), Appendix II.

page 174 note 2 United States treaties with the following countries: Bolivia, April 21. 1900, 1 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 125; Brazil, May 14, 1897, 1 ibid. 146; Chile, April 17, 1900, 1 ibid. 192; Denmark, Jan. 6, 1902, 1 ibid. 390; Guatemala, Feb. 27, 1903, 1 ibid. 878; Mexico, Feb. 22, 1899, 1 ibid. 1184; Norway, June 7, 1893, 2 ibid. 1300; Panama, May 25, 1904, 2 ibid. 1357; Salvador, April 18, 1911, 3 ibid. 2820; Serbia, Oct. 25, 1901, 2 ibid. 1622; Sweden, Jan. 14, 1893, 2 ibid. 1736; Switzerland, May 14, 1900, 2 ibid. 1771; Uruguay, March 11, 1905, 2 ibid. 1825.

page 174 note 3 United States-Spain, June 15, 1904, 2 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1712; United States-Honduras, Jan. 15, 1909, 3 ibid. 2685; United States-Dominican Republic, June 19, 1909, 3 ibid. 2567; United States-Paraguay, March 26, 1913, 3 ibid. 2783; Colombia-Chile, Appendix I, No. 3; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 11; United States-Costa Rica, Nov. 10, 1922, 3 ibid. 2548; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 12; United States-Venezuela, Appendix I, No. 13; Albania-Yugoslavia, Appendix I, No. 44; Panama-Colombia, Appendix I, No. 54; United States-Poland, Appendix I, No. 57; Austria-Belgium, Appendix I, No. 9.

Similarly the telegraph is alone mentioned in the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3; South American Convention of 1911, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 4; Bustamante Code, 1928, Art. 366, Appendix III, No. 5; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 174 note 4 United States-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 14; United States-Finland, Appendix I, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, Appendix I, No. 24; Estonia-Finland, Appendix I, No. 33; Hungary-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 64.

See also Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 6, allowing “any means of communication.” Field Code of 1876, Art. 217, Appendix IV, No. 1, does not mention means of communication.

page 174 note 5 See (references are to Appendix I): Germany-Greece, No. 1; Sweden-Finland, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, No. 18; Switzerland-Uruguay, No. 19; Bulgaria-Rumania, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, No. 27; France-Latvia, No. 29; France-Poland, No. 32; Norway-Finland, No. 35; Czechoslovakia-Rumania, No. 36; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Belgium-Estonia, No. 41; France-San Marino, No. 43; Spain-Czechoslovakia, No. 51; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, No. 53; Norway-Latvia, No. 55; Belgium-Finland, No. 58; France-Czechoslovakia, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Bulgaria-Turkey, No. 65; Austria-Sweden, No. 72; Spain-Latvia, No. 74; Norway-Estonia, No. 76; Denmark-Estonia, No. 77; Denmark-Latvia, No. 79; Sweden-Estonia, No. 80.

The Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7, speaks of “telegraphic and postal communication.”

page 174 note 6 The telephone is mentioned in Statutes of Hungary, Law XXXIII of 1896, Chap. XXIV, and of Yugoslavia, Code of Criminal Procedure of 1929, Chap. XXVI, Art. 491.

page 174 note 7 Art. 19, Appendix VI, No. 6.

Travers in his Draft Convention of 1928, Art. 7, provides for telegraphic or telephonic communication, but in case of the latter would require telegraphic confirmation within 24 hours. Appendix IV, No. 4.

The Draft Convention approved by the International Law Association in 1928, provides for communication by any channels permitting of verification. Appendix IV, No. 5.

The International Penal and Prison Association (Draft Convention of 1931, Art. 26, Appendix IV, No. 6), would allow any form of communication which leaves traces in writing, but would require that, when an application is sent by telephone or wireless telegraph, the receiving authority must ascertain by independent inquiry that it is authentic.

page 175 note 1 Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 175 note 2 Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 85 and Appendix II.

A Memorandum of the British Home Office of July, 1922, is instructive:

“3. Application for action to be taken for the extradition of a fugitive criminal must be addressed by the prosecutor or Chief Officer of the police concerned in the case to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who will communicate through proper diplomatic channels, with authority of place where accused is believed to be.

“4. The police in this country may communicate direct with the police of foreign countries for the purpose of giving or obtaining information, but under no circumstances should direct application be made by them for the arrest of a fugitive.

“5. Where apprehension of the accused is a matter of urgency His Majesty’s representative in the country where he is may be instructed by the Secretary of State by telegram to apply for the provisional arrest in anticipation of the claim for extradition. Where a treaty provides for the provisional arrest of a fugitive in a foreign country, it usually fixes a period (varying from 14 to 60 days) from the date of arrest within which formal claim for extradition must be made.

“6. … In a case of urgency the evidence to support the claim for extradition may be sent later.

“7. Police officers may by arranging in special cases be sent out to help the foreign police in tracing the accused or in supporting the claim for extradition after.”

page 175 note 3 Conforming to the provision in the United States statute, Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 175 note 4 See, for example, treaties with Spain, Aug. 7,1882,2 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1676; Russia, March 28, 1887, 2 ibid. 1527; Norway, June 7, 1893, 2 ibid. 1300; Serbia, Oct. 25, 1901, 2 ibid. 1622; Honduras, Jan. 15, 1909, 3 ibid. 2685; Venezuela, Jan. 19, 1922, 3 ibid. 2870.

page 175 note 5 Treaties with Costa Rica, Nov. 10, 1922, 3 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 2548; Latvia, Appendix I, No. 14; Poland, Appendix I, No. 57.

page 175 note 6 Treaties with Estonia, Appendix I, No. 15; Finland, Appendix I. No. 23; Bulgaria, Appendix I, No. 24; Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 26; Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 31.

page 175 note 7 Art. 8, Appendix V, No. 1.

page 176 note 1 See (references are to Appendix I): Switzerland-Uruguay, No. 19; Belgium-Estonia, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, No. 42; Liberia-Monaco, No. 48; Albania-Greece, No. 49; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, No. 53; Belgium-Finland, No. 58; United States-Germany, No. 70.

page 176 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): Bulgaria-Rumania, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, No. 27; France-San Marino, No. 43; Albania-Greece, No. 49; Hungary-Latvia, No. 64.

page 176 note 3 Treaties between Czechoslovakia and Rumania, Appendix I, No. 36; Estonia, Appendix L No. 37; Latvia, Appendix I, No. 38, and Bulgaria, Appendix I, No. 39; also Bulgaria-Greece, Appendix I, No. 62.

page 176 note 4 France-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 29; France-Poland, Appendix I, No. 32; Turkey-Bulgaria, Appendix I, No. 65.

page 176 note 5 United States-Italy, June 11, 1884, 1 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 985; Austria-Hungary-Greece, Appendix I, No. 1; Germany-Greece, Appendix I, No. 2; France-San Marino, Appendix I, No. 43.

In three Belgian treaties it is directed that request be made of Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the added proviso that, if request is made of a judicial or executive authority, action upon it shall be optional: Estonia, Appendix I, No. 41; Latvia, Appendix I, No. 42; Finland, Appendix I, No. 58.

page 176 note 6 Hungary-Yugoslavia, Appendix I, No. 61; judicial authorities and consular agents to Ministry of Justice or competent judicial authority (Italy-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 12); competent authorities or diplomatic and consular agents to Minister of Justice (Albania-Yugoslavia, Appendix I, No. 43).

page 176 note 7 Austria-Belgium, Appendix I, No. 90.

page 176 note 8 Latvia-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 4; Lithuania-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 5; Norway-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 55; Spain-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 74. Public prosecutor’s department or examining magistrate to competent authorities (Norway-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 76).

page 176 note 9 Norway-Finland, Appendix I, No. 35; Austria-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 45; Austria-Finland, Appendix I, No. 59. Note the exphcit provision against this in Great Britain, Memorandum of the Home Office, in footnote 2, supra 175.

page 176 note 10 Finland-Sweden, Appendix I, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Appendix I, No. 18; Finland-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 21; Estonia-Finland, Appendix I, No. 33: Denmark-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 77; Denmark-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 79; Sweden-Estonia, Appendix I, No. 80.

page 176 note 11 Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 176 note l2 Appendix III, No. 6.

page 176 note 13 Ibid., No. 3.

page 176 note 14 Ibid., No. 4.

page 176 note 15 Ibid., No. 7.

page 177 note 1 Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 177 note 2 Ibid., No. 5.

page 177 note 3 Ibid.. No. 6.

page 177 note 4 (References are to Appendix I): Czechoslovakia-Rumania, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Spain-Latvia, No. 74; Sweden-Estonia, No. 80.

page 177 note 5 Costa Rica, Penal Code, Arts. 234 and 236; Czechoslovakia, Penal Code, par. 39; Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11,1922, Art. 18; Iraq, Extradition Law, 1923, Arts. 11,12 and 13; Italy, Penal Code, Art. 13, and Criminal Procedure Code, Art. 661, Appendix VI, No. 10; Liechtenstein, Penal Code, par. 39; Norway, Extradition Law, June 13, 1908, par. 20; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, Ch. II, §25, Appendix VI, No. 12.

The provision of Swedish law is typical:

“Anyone, who in a foreign State is being sought for a crime which under this law may give rise to extradition, may be arrested here in the Kingdom without a special requisition in the matter being at hand. A report on the arrest shall immediately be submitted to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

“If the Minister of Foreign Affairs finds that there are obstacles to the extradition of the person arrested, he shall issue an order concerning his release. If it is found that there are no obstacles the foreign State shall be informed of the arrest and in connection therewith a certain period shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 within which requisition for the extradition of the person arrested shall be made.” (§24 deals with provisional arrest.)

page 178 note 1 See (references are to Appendix I): Bulgaria-Rumania, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, No. 27; France-Latvia, No. 29; France-Poland, No. 32; France-San Marino, No. 43; Greece-Albania, No. 49; Bulgaria-Turkey, No. 65.

page 178 note 2 United States-Japan, April 29, 1886, 1 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1025; United States-Mexico, Feb. 22, 1889, 1 ibid. 1184; United States-Guatemala, Feb. 27, 1903, 1 ibid., 878; Germany-Greece, Appendix I, No. 2; Austria-Hungary-Greece, ibid. No. 1; Italy-Czechoslovakia, ibid. No. 12; Belgium-Estonia, ibid. No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, ibid. No. 42; Albania-Yugoslavia, ibid. No. 44; Belgium-Finland, ibid. No. 58; Hungary-Yugoslavia, ibid. No. 61; Norway-Estonia, ibid. No. 76.

page 178 note 3 United States-Colombia, May 7, 1888, 1 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 323; United States-Argentina, Sept. 26, 1896, 1 ibid. 25; Six treaties, listed in Appendix I, made by Czechoslovakia with nations as follows: Rumania, No. 36, Estonia, No. 37, Latvia, No. 38, Bulgaria, No. 39, Spain, No. 51, France, No. 60; Greece-Bulgaria, ibid., No. 62; Spain-Latvia, ibid., No. 74.

page 178 note 4 See (references are to Appendix I): Denmark-Finland, No. 18; Finland-Latvia, No. 21; Austria-Norway, No. 34; Norway-Finland, No. 35; Austria-Estonia, No. 45; Norway-Latvia, No. 55; Austria-Finland, No. 59; Austria-Sweden, No. 72; Denmark-Estonia, No. 77; Denmark-Latvia, No. 79; Sweden-Estonia, No. 80.

page 178 note 5 Colombia-Chile, Appendix I, No. 3; United States-Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 26.

page 178 note 6 Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3.

page 178 note 7 Art. 366, Appendix III, No. 5.

page 178 note 8 Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 178 note 9 Art. 217, Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 178 note 10 Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 178 note 11 Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 4.

page 178 note 12 Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 178 note 13 Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 5.

page 179 note 1 Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 179 note 2 Art. 27, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 179 note 3 Ibid.

page 179 note 4 For example, a duty to arrest is imposed by the treaties between Germany and Turkey, Art. 9, Appendix V, No. 3, and Belgium and Poland, Art. 10, Appendix V, No. 6; while permissive language is used in the treaties between Brazil and Italy, Art. 10, Appendix V, No. 4, and Colombia and Panama, Art. 13, Appendix V, No. 7.

page 179 note 5 Duty is imposed in South American Convention of 1911, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 4; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7, and apparently by the Bustamante Code, Art. 366, Appendix III, No. 5, while permissive language is used in the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3.

page 179 note 6 The following drafts make arrest permissive: Field's Code of 1876, Art. 217, Appendix IV, No. 1; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 3; International Law Association Draft of 1928, Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 5. Travers would make arrest compulsory if request is communicated through diplomatic or consular channels, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 4. The Draft of the International Penal and Prison Association, Art. 26, to Art. 28, provides that provisional arrest “may be requested” as there provided, seeming to imply that if so requested the arrest should be made, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 180 note 1 No attempt will be made to list all of the treaties, examples only will be given. References are to Appendix I:

From date of arrest: three months, United States-Poland, No. 57; two months, United States-Lithuania, No. 26; Greece-Albania, No. 49; 45 days, Albania-Yugoslavia, No. 44; six weeks, Austria-Norway, No. 34; forty days, United States-Netherlands, Jan. 18, 1904, 2 Malloy, Treaties, etc., 1271; five weeks, France-Poland, No. 32; one month, United States-Germany, No. 70, Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7; thirty days, Great Britain-Lithuania, No. 46, Lithuania-Estonia, No. 5; four weeks, Denmark-Latvia, No. 79; three weeks, Belgium-Finland, No. 58; twenty-one days, France-San Marino, No. 43.

From date of receipt by requesting State of notice of arrest: forty-five days, Hungary-Latvia, No. 64; six weeks, Norway-Latvia, No. 55; one month, Austria-Sweden, No. 72; thirty days, Austria-Finland, No. 59; four weeks, Sweden-Estonia, No. 80; fifteen days, Greece-Bulgaria, No. 62.

From date of forwarding notice of arrest: fifteen days, Czechoslovakia with Bulgaria, No. 39, Latvia, No. 38, and Estonia, No. 37.

page 180 note 2 Appendix IV, No. 7.

page 180 note 3 HUNGARY: (a) One month if requesting State is neighbor of Hungary, (b) six weeks for other European countries, (c) three months for countries outside of Europe (Law XXXIII of 1896, Ch. XXIV); JUGOSLAVIA: (a) Twenty days if requesting State is a bordering country, (b) five weeks for another European country, (c) ten weeks for a country on another continent (Code of Criminal Procedure of 1929, Ch. XXVI, Art. 491); SWITZERLAND: (a) Twenty days if requesting State is a bordering country, (b) thirty days if another European country, (c) three months if a country on another continent (Law of Jan. 22, 1892, Arts. 19–20, Appendix VI, No. 13).

page 180 note 4 FRANCE : If requesting State is in Europe, twenty days to one month, if outside of Europe, three months (Law of 10 March 1927, Art. 19, Appendix VI, No. 6); ITALY: If requesting State is a European country, sixty days; if not, ninety days (Penal Code, Arts. 663, 5, 71, Appendix VI, No. 10); LATVIA (Code of Criminal Procedure (1926) Art. 865); LITHUANIA (Penal Code, Ch. XII, Art. 852 (19); NORWAY; If requesting State is a European country, six weeks, if not, three months (Law of June 13, 1908, Arts. 19–20).

page 180 note 5 “Two months:” Costa Rica, Penal Code, Cap. II, De la Extradición, Art. 232–33, 238; Iraq, Extradition of Offenders Law of 1923, sees. 11–12; Siam, Extradition Act, B.E. 2472, 15 Dec. Art. 10. “Sixty days:” Panama, Ley 44 de 1980 de 22 de Novembre sobre extradición—La Asamblea Nacional de Procedemientos Penales, Tit. XXXIV, Cap. I, Art. 610–13.

page 180 note 6 Imperial Ordinance, No. 42, Aug. 10, 1895, Arts. 9–10, Appendix VI, No. 11.

page 180 note 7 El Congress de la República del Ecuador Decreto; La Seguiente Ley de Extranjería, Extradición y Naturalización, Cap. VI, De la Extradición.

page 180 note 8 Law of May 19, 1897, Arts. 13–14.

page 180 note 9 Código de Enjuiciamento Criminal, Bk. III , Ch. III , Sec. V, Art. 392.

page 181 note 1 Article 10, Appendix VI, No. 7.

page 181 note 2 Appendix VI, No. 8; Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 94.

page 181 note 3 Appendix VI, No. 15; Moore, Extradition (1891) I, §§270 to 275, pp. 400 to 406.

page 181 note 4 Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 8, Appendix III, No. 3.

page 181 note 5 South American Convention of 1911, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 4.

page 181 note 6 Bustamante Code, Art. 366, Appendix III, No. 5.

page 181 note 7 Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 10, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 181 note 8 Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 7, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 181 note 9 Field’s Code, Art. 217, Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 181 note 10 Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 14, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 181 note 11 Travers’ Draft, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 181 note 12 International Law Association Draft, Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 5.

page 181 note 13 International Penal and Prison Association Draft, Art. 29, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 182 note 1 Notice of date of arrest to be given (reference numbers are to Appendix I): Germany-Czechoslovakia, No. 11; Norway-Finland, No. 35; France-Czechoslovakia, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, No. 61.

Notice of date and place of arrest: Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62.

Notice of date of arrest and place of detention: Rumania-Czechoslovakia, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Spain-Czechoslovakia, No. 51; Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Spain-Latvia, No. 74. This last named treaty also calls upon the requesting State to confirm by telegram the receipt of such notice within eight days of its receipt.

page 183 note 1 Billot, Traité. de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 185 to 188; also pp. 415 to 421 for text of Circulaire du Ministre de la Justice du 5 Avril, 1841.

page 183 note 2 Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), V, §§2370 to 2372, pp. 158 to 163.

page 183 note 3 Article 147 of Instruction for the Administration and Dispatch of the Business of the Ministry of State:

page 183 note 4 Cuba also has no special law providing for extradition requested of Cuba. This is, however, how Cuban procedural practice is described in an official despatch from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of the United States Embassy:

page 183 note 5 The Extradition Law of Ecuador of October 8,1921, has only one article (No. 51) providing for the extradition procedure, which reads:

page 183 note 6 Though the Panama Extradition Law of November 22, 1930, prescribes an executive determination, it is somewhat more liberal as it provides (Article 9) for the right of the person claimed to propose objections to his extradition:

page 183 note 7 We have practically no material on extradition procedure in Portugal and Egypt, except the following remarks in official communications of their respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs to the State Department of the United States:

page 184 note 1 These countries inherited Laws of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Code of 1914, by which extradition is left to executive discretion, though a quasi-judicial investigation may be asked for by the Minister of Justice. In Article 852 it is provided (sections 16 and 18):

Before deciding upon the question of extradition the Minister of Justice is entitled:

1. [Provides for a request for additional documents:] 2. To charge the prosecuting attorney of the District Court, in the respective district in which the claimed person is residing, with the gathering of information required for the decision on the question of extradition. The court investigator upon requirement of the prosecuting attorney makes proper investigation in conformity with this statute and in particular with articles 403–412, as regards the interrogation of the accused person.

page 184 note 2 Art. 8 of the Act B. E. 2772 provides that the requisition “shall be transmitted to the Ministry of the Interior in order that the case may be brought before the court” unless “The Royal Siamese Government decides otherwise.”

page 184 note 3 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 189 to 193.

page 184 note 4 Law of August 13, 1849, modified by Law of April 6, 1875.

page 184 note 5 Austro-Hungarian Criminal Code of 1873, Art. 59; Violet, La Procédure d’Extradition (1898), p. 82.

page 184 note 6 Extradition Law of May 17, 1897.

page 184 note 7 Ibid., August 10, 1895, Appendix VI, No. 11.

page 184 note 8 Ibid., October 23, 1888, Art. 12.

page 184 note 9 Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 648 to 649.

page 185 note 1 Maurice Violet, La Procédure d’Extradition (1898), p. 83.

page 185 note 2 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §360, pp. 550 and 551, citing: Bee’s Adm. Rep. p. 266 et seq.; W. B. Lawrence, 14 Albany L. Jour. 89–90; Wharton’s State Trials, 392 et seq.; 1 Hall’s Jour. of Jur. 13 et seq.; J. Wheaton, Appendix, p. 19; United States Gazette, 1800.

page 185 note 3 1 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc. (1910), p. 650.

page 185 note 4 30 British and Foreign State Papers, 194.

page 185 note 5 1 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, etc. (1910), p. 526.

page 185 note 6 Matter of Metzger (1847), 5 N. Y. Legal Observer, 83, 5 Howard (U. S.) 176.

page 185 note 7 6 and 7 Vict. c. 76; 6 and 7 Vict. c. 75.

page 185 note 8 Act of Aug. 12, 1848. The duty to surrender after favorable judicial determination was at first held merely administrative, but after 1871 it was held to be discretionary. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §§361–364, pp. 551–556; In re Stupp (1875), 12 Blatchford’s Reports, 501.

page 185 note 9 33 and 34 Vict. c. 52, sec. 7 to 9, Appendix VI, No. 8. In re Castioni, [1891] 1 Queens Bench Reports, at pp. 163 and 164; Rex v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Perry [1924] 1 Kings Bench Reports, 455, at p. 460; In re Arton, [1896] 1 Queens Bench Reports, at p. 115; Rex v. Governor of Holloway Prison, ex parte Siletti (1902), 72 Law Journal Kings Bench 935.

page 185 note 10 Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure, sec. 651; Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 185 note 11 Canadian Extradition Act, Revised Statutes 1927, sees. 10 to 18, Appendix VI, No. 4; India, Extradition Act, Nov. 4, 1903, sees. 5-6; Australia, Extradition Act., Oct. 21, 1903, Art. 5; New Zealand, Extradition Acts 1908 and 1924; Transjordan, Extradition Law, 1927, sees. 9–12; Union of South Africa, Extradition Law, 1877.

page 186 note 1 Extradition Law of 1923, sees. 11–15.

page 186 note 2 Ibid., Aug. 25, 1885, Arts. 16–23, Appendix VI, No. 1.

page 186 note 3 Law No. 2416, of June 28, 1911, Arts. 9, 10, Appendix VI, No. 3.

page 186 note 4 Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 703, Appendix VI, No. 5.

page 186 note 5 Penal Code, c. II, Art. 236.

page 186 note 6 Law of Feb. 7, 1904, Arts. 5–6, Appendix VI, No. 9.

page 186 note 7 Law of Nov. 21, 1912, Arts. 16–26.

page 186 note 8 Law of March 13, 1870, Art. 2.

page 186 note 9 While there appears to be no statutory provision, this classification of Rumania is based upon a communication from the Rumanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the United States Department of State.

page 186 note 10 Penal Code, Art. 9, Appendix VI, No. 14.

page 186 note 11 Penal Code, Arts. 10 to 12.

page 186 note 12 Criminal Code of 1929, Arts. 489 to 499.

page 186 note 13 Extradition Law of March 10,1927, Arts. 11 to 18, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 186 note 14 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 206; Violet, La Procédure d’Extradition (1898), p. 126.

page 186 note 15 Code of Criminal Procedure of 1913, Arts. 661 and 662, Appendix VI, No. 10.

page 186 note 16 Extradition Law of June 13, 1908, Arts. 16–20.

page 186 note 17 Ibid., Jan. 14, 1913, Arts. 15 to 19, Appendix VI, No. 12.

page 186 note 18 Ibid., Feb. 11, 1922, Arts. 14–16.

page 186 note 19 Ibid., Jan. 22, 1892, Arts. 22 to 24, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 186 note 20 Arts. 8, 28, 29 (2), 30, Appendix VI, No. 7.

page 188 note 1 “In the present case it is only necessary to point out the defects in the proceedings in order to show the reasons which prevented the executive from ordering the surrender in the case. The first is, it does not appear at what time the crime was committed; which, of itself, is fatal under the fifth article of the Convention.” Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, to French Legation, Dec. 4,1844; referring to treaty of Nov. 9,1843, with France (Mas.). Moore, Extradition (1891), I, p. 524, note 3.

page 188 note 2 Travers, Droit Pénal International (1922), IV, §2146 II; Hudson, Manley O., “The Factor Case and Double Criminalty in Extradition,” 28 American Journal of International Law (1934), 274, 281 and 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 188 note 3 The difficulties inherent in the question what is sufficient evidence of foreign law in an extradition proceeding are shown if one compares Ex parte Worms (1876), 22 Lower Canada, Jurist 109; Re Deering (1915), 24 Dominion Law Reports; Re Wagner (1928), 4 Dominion Law Reports, 615; and Re Clark (1929), 3 Dominion Law Reports, 737.

page 188 note 4 Treaty between Great Britain and Prussia of March 5, 1864, Article I, Report from the Select Committee [of the House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), p. 129. To same effect is the treaty with Denmark, April 15, 1862, ibid., p. 123.

page 189 note 1 Article 10, Appendix VI, No. 8. See Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 128.

page 189 note 2 Articles 14 and 15.

page 189 note 3 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §337, p. 517.

page 189 note 4 E.g., Treaty with Belgium of May 1, 1874, Moore, Extradition (1891), II, p. 1081.

page 189 note 5 “The extradition shall take place only if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the High Contracting Party applied to, either to justify the committal of the grisoner for trial, in case the crime or offence had been committed in the territory of such High Contracting Party, or to prove that the prisoner is the identical person convicted by the courts of the High Contracting Party who makes the requisition, and that the crime or offence of which he has been convicted is one in respect of which extradition could, at the time of such conviction, have been granted by the High Contracting Party applied to.” Appendix V, No. 1.

page 189 note 6 Revised Statutes of 1878, sec. 5270, Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 189 note 7 Re Coppin (1866), Law Reports, 2 Chancery Appeals, 47; British Extradition Act 1870 Art. 26, Appendix VI, No. 8; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §102, pp. 131–134.

page 189 note 8 Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 202.

page 190 note 1 Extradition Treaties, 1 Law Journal (1866), 175.

page 190 note 2 See, for brief discussion; Roux, J. A., “L’Entr’aide des Etats dans la Lutte contre la Criminality” 136 Recueil des Cours (1931)Google Scholar, (Académie de droit international), 81, at 123–129; Prévost-Paradol, “De L’Extradition des Accusés entre la France et l’Angleterre,” 61 Revue des Deux Mondes (1866), 1012, at 1015–1018; I Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public (1922), pt. I, pp. 1037–1038.

page 190 note 3 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 190 note 4 Art. 27, I Malloy, Treaties, etc., 605.

page 190 note 5 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §77, p. 89.

page 190 note 6 Art. 10, I Malloy, Treaties, etc., 655.

page 190 note 7 II Ibid., 1825. Professor Hyde believes that the exception was due to an oversight. Hyde, , “Notes on the Extradition Treaties of the United States,” 8 American Journal of International Law (1914), 487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 190 note 8 Art. 1, 31 British and Foreign State Papers, 195.

page 191 note 1 The English indictment and the French acte d’accusation differ radically. The former is drawn up by an independent prosecutor, the latter by one in constant communication with the committing magistrate. Further, the acte is a narrative, related sometimes in the words of the witness and sometimes in the words of the prosecutor; the indictment is a formal instrument drawn up under oath. See Westlake, “Extradition Treaties,” National Assoc, for promotion of Social Science Transactions, Oct. 1866, p. 151.

See “Extradition Treaties,” 1 Law Journal (1866), 175. “A French View of the Extradition Treaty with France,” 10 Solicitors Journal and Reporter (1866), 252; “Extradition Treaties,” 1 Law Journal (1866), 428; Prévost-Paradol, “De l’Extradition des Accusés entre la France et l’Angleterre,” 61 Revue des Deux Mondes (1866), 1012; Bernard, Traité Theorique et Pratique de l’Extradition (1890), II, p. 397 et seq.

page 191 note 2 41 British and Foreign State Papers, 28; Report from Select Committee [of House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), pp. 6–8.

page 191 note 3 Bernard, l’Extradition (1890), II, 360.

page 191 note 4 29 & 30 Vict. c. 121. See Report from Select Committee [of House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), par. 126, p. 8, and pars. 752–821, pp. 40–42.

page 191 note 5 Report from Select Committee [of House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), pars. 14–21 p. IX.

page 192 note 1 Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 192 note 2 See Arts. 14 and 15 as to use of foreign warrants and depositions as evidence.

page 192 note 3 The meaning of the clause “such evidence … as would, according to the law of Engand justify committal for trial … if the crime … had been committed in England” depends upon the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 42) which reads:

“And be it enacted, That when all the evidence offered upon the Part of the Prosecution against the accused Party shall have been heard, if the Justice or Justices of the Peace then present shall be of opinion that it is not sufficient to put such accused Party upon his Trial for an indictable offence, such Justice or Justices shall forthwith order such accused Party, if in Custody, to be discharged as to the Information then under Inquiry; but if, in the Opinion of such Justice or Justices, such Evidence is sufficient to put the accused Party upon his Trial for an indictable offence, or if the evidence given raise a strong or probable Presumption of the Guilt of such accused Party, then such Justice or Justices shall, by his or their warrant, commit him. …”

page 192 note 4 Revised Statutes of 1878, Sec. 5270, Appendix VI, No. 15.

page 193 note 1 The following treaties contain provisions similar to those in Anglo-American treaties: Venezuela-Cuba (1910), Art. 1,1 American Journal ofInternational Law (1907), Supp., p. 169; Egypt-Palestine (1922), Art. 7, 36 League of Nations Treaty Series, 933; Greece-Albania Art. 14, Appendix I, No. 49.

page 193 note 2 (References are to Appendix 1): Finland-Sweden, Art. 7, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 9, No. 18; Finland-Latvia, Art. 8, No. 21; Finland-Estonia, Art. 8, No. 33; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6, No. 52; Finland-Austria, Art. 7, No. 59; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 8, No. 64; Spain-Bulgaria, Art. 6, No. 73; Spain-Latvia, Art. 4, No. 74; Denmark-Estonia, Art. 9, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 8, No. 78; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 8, No. 80; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 6, No. 83.

page 193 note 3 Mexico-Guatemala, 1894, 1 American Journal of International Law (1906), Supp., p. 284; Argentine-Swiss Confederation, 1906, 6 ibid. (1912), p. 219; Spain-Greece, 1910, 5 ibid. (1911), p. 219; Austria-Hungary-Serbia, 1911, 7 ibid. (1913), p. 17; Salvador-Mexico 1912, 7 ibid. (1913), p. 133; Poland-Free City of Danzig 1921, Warsaw agreement, p. 2, Sec. I, Ch. 2; and the following treaties cited in Appendix I: Austria-Hungary-Greece No. 1; Germany-Greece No. 2; Estonia-Lithuania No. 5; Estonia-Latvia No. 4; Latvia-Lithuania No. 6; Germany-Czechoslovakia No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia No. 12; Switzerland-Uruguay No. 19; Bulgaria-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes No. 16; France-Latvia No. 29; Hungary-Rumania No. 27; Bulgaria-Rumania No. 22; Brazil-Paraguay No. 8; Rumania-Czechoslovakia No. 36; Finland-Norway No. 35; Austria-Norway No. 34; France-Poland No. 32; Albania-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes No. 44; France-San Marino No. 43; Belgium-Paraguay No. 40; Bulgaria-Turkey No. 65; Belgium-Latvia No. 42; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia No. 39; Czechoslovakia-Latvia No. 38; Estonia-Czechoslovakia No. 37; Spain-Czechoslovakia No. 51; Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes No. 61; France-Czechoslovakia No. 60; Italy-Finland No. 66; Bulgaria-Greece No. 62; Norway-Estonia No. 76; Austria-Sweden No. 72; Latvia-Denmark No. 79; Latvia-Netherlands No. 68.

page 193 note 4 See Puente, , “Principles of International Extradition in Latin America,” 28 Michigan Law Review (1930), 665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 193 note 5 2 American Journal of International Law (1908), Supp., p. 243.

page 193 note 6 Art. 2, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 193 note 7 Appendix III, No. 5.

page 193 note 8 In France, as early as 1841, in the Circulaire of the Minister of Justice it was made clear that request for extradition must be based upon an arrêt or a “mandat d’arrêt”; a “mandat d’amener” would not do, because it did not contain a description of the act, being usually issued before the full nature of the act is known. Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 415.

page 193 note 9 See, for example, Argentine, Extradition Law No. 1612, Arts. 12 and 18, Appendix VI, No. 1; Belgium, Extradition Law of 1874 and subsequent modifications, Appendix VI, No. 2; Brazil, Extradition Law of 1911, Appendix VI, No. 3; Colombia, Judicial Code, Bk. III , Tit. 10, Ch. VIII; Cuba, Penal Code, sees. 822-843; Ecuador, Law Concerning Aliens, Extradition & Naturalization, c. VI, Arts. 37-61; France, Extradition Law of 1927, Arts. 9 and 16, Appendix VI, No. 6; Germany, Extradition Law of 1929, Appendix VI, No. 7; Hungary, Ch. XXIV of Law XXXIII of 1896; Luxembourg, Extradition Law of 1870; Netherlands, Extradition Act of 1875; Panama, Law 44 of the National Assembly of 1930; Peru, Extradition Law of 1888; Poland, Penal Code, sees. 642-650; Salvador, Code of Civil Court Procedure, sees. 27–29, Penal Code, sees. 41–43; Switzerland, Extradition Law of 1892, Appendix VI, No. 13; Venezuela, Criminal Code, Bk. III, c. III , sec. 5, Arts. 389–393. Cf. Japanese Extradition Law of 1895, Art. 18, Appendix VI, No. 11; The Italian Penal Code, Art. 667, reads, in part (Appendix VI, No. 10):

“The Section ascertains whether the conditions established in Article 13 of the Penal Code and in the international treaty concerned are present. Should there be no convention or should the convention not otherwise stipulate, it also ascertains whether the acts and documents submitted give sufficient evidence of guilt or whether the sentence already pronounced has been verified.”

Proof of prima facie case is not necessary between Italy and Switzerland, but is necessary by treaty between Italy and Great Britain. Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1919–1922, p. 260.

page 194 note 1 Note in 1 Law Journal (1866), 175; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §338, p. 518; Note in 31 Michigan Law Review (1933), 544.

See the criticisms of the Anglo-American position in Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 202 to 212; Bernard, Traité Théorigue et Pratique de l’Extradition (1890), pp. 362 to 380; Fiore, Traité de Droit Pénal International et de l’Extradition (1880), II, pp. 649 and 650; Travers, L’entr’aide Répressive Internationale et la Loi Francaise du 11 Mars 1927 (1928), §261; St. Aubin, L’Extradition et le Droit Extraditional (1913), I pp. 187–241; Brocher, “Etude sur les conflits de Législation en Matière de Droit Pénal” (Chap. III—De l’Extradition), 7 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée (1874), 180–181; Prévost-Parodol, “De l’Extradition des Accusés entre la France et l’Angleterre,” 61 Revue Des Deux Mondes (1866), 1026.

page 195 note 1 Cf. Re Ross (1869), 2 Bond’s Reports 252, 261; Ex parte Kaine (1853), 3 Blatchford’s Reports, 1; Re Henrich (1867), 5 Blatchford’s Reports 444; Re Risch (1888), 36 Federal Reports 546; Benson v. McMahon (1888), 127 United States Reports 457. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §337–346, pp. 516–528.

The administration of the rule of the prima facie case under the treaty between the United States and Greece, Art. 1 (Appendix I, No. 84) produced very doubtful results in the Insull case. See Professor Hyde’s comment in 28 American Journal of International Law (1934) 307; Note in 31 Michigan Law Review (1933) 544.

page 196 note 1 Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 196 note 2 Ibid., No. 10.

page 196 note 3 Ibid., No. 7.

page 196 note 4 Ibid., No. 15.

page 196 note 5 Ibid., No. 8.

page 196 note 6 In re Parisot (1889), 5 Times Law Reports 344; In re Meunier, [1894] 2 Queens Bench Reports, 415; In re Siletti (1902), 7 Law Journal Kings Bench, 935; Clarke, Extradition (4th ed., 1903), p. 251; Glucksman v. Henkel (1910), 221 Federal 508; Ex parte La Manila (1913), 206 Fed. Rep. 330; In re Lincoln (1915), 228 Fed. Rep. 70; Bagley v. Starwich (1925), 8 F. (2d), 42; United States v. Mathues (1929), 36 F. (2d), 565; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §342, p. 524.

page 197 note 1 In re Ezeta (1894), 62 Fed. Rep, 972; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §318, p. 577; In re Castioni, [1891] 1 Queens Bench Reports, 149; In re Meunier, [1894] 2 Queens Bench Reports, 415.

page 197 note 2 In re Ezeta, supra; Hyde, ibid.; Julian W. Mack, 3 Proceedings American Society of International Law (1909), pp. 144 and 153 to 155. Cf. Deere, Lora L., “Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition,” 27 Amer. J. of Int. L. (1933), 247 at 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where she asserts that the burden of proof in Swiss law is on the person claimed.

page 198 note 1 Wigmore, Evidence (1923), V, §2538, p. 550.

page 199 note 1 In re Guerin (1889), 60 Law Times Reports, 538, where the person claimed sought exemption from the operation of the Franco-British treaty by force of a provision in the treaty against nationals, the court said (p. 540): “The onus lies on any person claiming exemption to prove that he comes within the exemption.”

In the case of Erbens, requested by the United States from Sweden, it appeared that he was a natural-born Swedish national. He admitted that he had voted in Wisconsin, but denied his naturalization. The Swedish Government required proof of his naturalization. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §137, p. 169.

page 200 note 1 The person claimed has been held entitled to introduce evidence and to call witnesses when the requesting State is attempting to make out a prima facie case against him, in extradition proceedings. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §346, pp. 526 to 528; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §336, pp. 600 and 601; United States Law of Aug. 3, 1882, sec. 3 (Appendix VI, No. 15); Clarke, Extradition (1903), pp. 248 to 254; Byron and Chalmers, Extradition (1903), pp. 40 to 42.

page 200 note 1 The person claimed has been held entitled to introduce evidence and to call witnesses when the requesting State is attempting to make out a prima facie case against him, in extradition proceedings. Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §346, pp. 526 to 528; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §336, pp. 600 and 601; United States Law of Aug. 3, 1882, sec. 3 (Appendix VI, No. 15); Clarke, Extradition (1903), pp. 248 to 254; Byron and Chalmers, Extradition (1903), pp. 40 to 42.

page 200 note 2 See comment on Article 17, paragraph (1).

page 200 note 3 Id.

page 200 note 4 See comment on Article 17, paragraph (1) as to the German law.

page 201 note 1 See comment on Article 17, paragraph (1).

page 201 note 2 Art. 12, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 201 note 3 Id.

page 201 note 4 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §§305 to 307, pp. 457 to 461

page 201 note 5 Appendix III, No. 6.

page 201 note 6 Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 201 note 7 Appendix I, No. 88.

page 202 note 1 Art. 23, Appendix V, No. 3.

page 202 note 2 Art. 17, Appendix I, No. 92. The same is true of the treaty between Finland and the Netherlands of 1933, Art. 9, see Appendix V, No. 8.

page 202 note 3 Art. 18, Appendix I, No. 90.

page 202 note 4 Appendix V, No. 6. The treaty between France and Czechoslovakia, Art. 7 (Appendix V, No. 5) also provides for the documents to be in the language of the requesting State, putting responsibility for translation on the requested State.

page 203 note 1 21 Opinions of the Attorney General (1896), 428.

page 203 note 2 In re Henrich (1867), 5 Blatchford’s Circuit Court Reports.

page 204 note 1 Such notice is expressly provided for in the Extradition Laws of Argentina, Art. 23, Appendix VI, No. 1, and of Switzerland, Art. 22, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 205 note 1 E.g., Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 11, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 7; French Extradition Law of 1927, Art. 18, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 205 note 2 E.g., Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Arts. 18 and 23, Appendix IV, No. 3; Draft of International Penal and Prison Association of 1931, Arts. 35 to 37, Appendix IV, No. 6; Brazilian Extradition Law, Art. 11, Appendix VI, No. 3; Canadian Extradition Law, Arts. 25, 26 and 28, Appendix VI, No. 4; British Extradition Law 1870, Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 8; treaty between Brazil and Italy, Art. XII, Appendix V, No. 4.

page 205 note 3 Belgium-Poland, Art. 12, Appendix V, No. 6; Colombia-Panama, Art. 16, Appendix V, No. 7; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 13, Appendix V, No. 8.

page 205 note 4 Art. 40, Appendix III, No. 2

page 205 note 5 Art. 18, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 205 note 6 Art. 35, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 205 note 7 Art. 234, Appendix IV, No. 1.

page 205 note 8 Art. 40, Appendix III, No. 2.

page 206 note 1 South American Convention of 1911, Art. 14, Appendix III, No. 4; Bustamante Code of 1928, Art. 367, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 11, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 9, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 206 note 2 Field’s Code of 1876, Art. 235, Appendix IV, No. 1; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 23, Appendix IV, No. 3; Draft of International Penal and Prison Association of 1931, Art. 36, Appendix IV, No. 6.

page 206 note 3 Brazil-Italy, Art. 12, Appendix V, No. 4; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 13, Appendix V, No. 8.

page 206 note 4 Brazil, Art. 11, Appendix VI, No. 3; Canada, Art. 28, Appendix VI, No. 4; France, Art.18, Appendix VI, No. 6; Great Britain, Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 8; Japan, Art. 21, Appendix VI, No. 11; Switzerland, Art. 28, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 206 note 5 See, for example, the provisions in the British (Appendix VI, No. 8, Art. 12) and Canadian Laws (Appendix VI, No. 4, Art. 28), the Swiss Law (Appendix VI, No. 13, Art. 28), the Central American Convention of 1934 (Appendix III, No. 7, Art. 9), the Draft of the International Penal and Prison Commission (Appendix IV, No. 6, Art. 36).

page 206 note 6 See, for example, the provision in the French Law, Art. 18, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 207 note 1 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §394, p. 598.

page 207 note 2 Ibid., §395, p. 599

page 207 note 3 Billot, Traité de I’Extradition (1874), p. 288 ff.

page 207 note 4 L’Entr’aide Répressive International (1928), §590, pp. 319-20

page 207 note 5 (References are to Appendix I): The treaties of the United States with (unless otherwise indicated the provision is contained in Art. 9): Siam, No. 7; Venezuela, No. 13; Latvia, No. 14; Estonia, No. 15; Finland, No. 23; Bulgaria, No. 24; Lithuania, No. 26; Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Poland, Art. 13, No. 57; Germany, Art. 11, No. 70; Austria, No. 71; Greece, No. 84; Colombia-Chile, Art. 14, No. 3; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 9, No. 48; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 13, No. 67. To the same effect see the following multipartite treaties (references are to Appendix III): Treaty of Amiens, Art. 20, No. 1; Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 12, No. 3 (excepts compensation to public functionaries receiving a fixed salary); Caracas Convention of 1911, Art. 15, No. 4; Bustamante Code, Art. 372, No. 5 (excepts compensation to public functionaries receiving a fixed salary); Central American Convention of 1934, Art. 11, No. 7. See also the Canadian Extradition Act, §38, Appendix VI, No. 4.

page 207 note 6 United States-Germany, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 70; United States-Austria, Art. 9, Appendix I, No. 71; United States-Greece, Art. 9, Appendix I, No. 84.

page 207 note 7 (References are to Appendix I): Austria-Hungary-Greece, Art. 12, No. 1; Germany-Greece, Art. 12, No. 2; Estonia-Latvia, Art. 17, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 17, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 17, No. 6; Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 7, No. 8; Italy-Yugoslavia, Art. 14, No. 10; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 22, No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 12; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, Art. 13, No. 16; Finland-Sweden, Art. 16, No. 17; Finland-Denmark, Art. 18, No. 18; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 17, No. 19; Great Britain-Latvia, Art. 16, No. 20; Finland-Latvia, Art. 17, No. 21; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 16, No. 22; Great Britain-Finland, Art. 16, No. 25; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 11, No. 27; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 16, No. 28; France-Latvia, Art. 14, No. 29; Great Britain-Estonia, Art. 15, No. 30; France-Poland, Art. 13, No. 32; Estonia-Finland, Art. 17, No. 33; Austria-Norway, Art. 16, No. 34; Finland-Norway, Art. 17, No. 35; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 19, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 39; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 17, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 10, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 10, No. 42; France-San Marino, Art. 11, No. 43; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 13, No. 44; Austria-Estonia, Art. 17, No. 45; Great Britain-Lithuania, Art. 16, No. 46; Great Britain-Albania, Art. 16, No. 47; Albania-Greece, Art. 20, No. 49; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 53; Colombia-Panama, Art. 17, No. 54; Latvia-Norway, Art. 16, No. 55; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 10, No. 56; Belgium-Finland, Art. 11, No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 17, No. 59; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 24, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 20, No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 16, No. 62; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 19, No. 63; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 17, No. 64;, Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 15, No. 65; Finland-Italy, Art. 16, No. 66; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 15, No. 68; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 17, No. 69; Austria-Sweden, Art. 17, No. 72; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 20, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 20, No. 74; Germany-Turkey, Art. 22, No. 75; Estonia-Norway, Art. 16, No. 76; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 18, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 17, No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 17, No. 79; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 17, No. 80; Poland-Sweden, Art. 23, No. 81; Italy-Panama, Art. 16, No. 82; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 83; Belgium-Poland, Art. 21, No. 85; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 86; Italy-Brazil, Art. 15, No. 87; Sweden-Czechoslovakia, Art. 21, No. 88; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 89; Austria-Belgium, Art. 19, No. 90; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 16, No. 91; Austria-Latvia, Art. 16, No. 92; Great Britain-Iraq, Art. 17, No. 93; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 19, No. 95. See to the same effect the Montevideo Convention of 1889, Art. 42, Appendix III, No. 2; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 16, Appendix III, No. 6; and the following draft conventions (references are to Appendix IV): Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Art. 20, No. 3; Travers’ Projet, Art. 14, No. 14; International Law Association, Art. 16, No. 5; International Penal and Prison Commission, Art. 39, No. 6, provides that the requested State shall inform the requesting State of the costs with a view to possible recovery from the surrendered person.

page 208 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 19, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 53; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 24, No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 20, No. 61; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 20, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 20, No. 74; Poland-Sweden, Art. 23, No. 81; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 83; Belgium-Poland, Art. 21, No. 85; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 86; Sweden-Czechoslovakia, Art. 21, No. 88; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 20, No. 89.

page 209 note 1 Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), p. 395

page 209 note 2 Ibid., p. 395; see also, Bernard, Traité Théorique el Pratique de I’Extradition (1890), I, pp. 468-470.

page 209 note 3 Violet, La procedure d’Extradition (1898), p. 237

page 209 note 4 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 278.

page 209 note 5 Fiore, Traité de droit pénal international et de l’extradition (1880), p. 665.

page 209 note 6 Travers, Le Droit Pénal International (1922), V, pp. 449-463

page 210 note 1 Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 210 note 2 Art. 11, Appendix III, No. 3.

page 210 note 3 Art. 19, Appendix III, No. 4.

page 210 note 4 Art. 375, Appendix III, No. 5.

page 210 note 5 Art. 18, Appendix III, No. 6.

page 210 note 6 It is noteworthy, however, that the United States in ratifying the Montevideo Convention has made, among others, a reservation to Art. 18.

page 210 note 7 Art. 19, Appendix IV, No. 3.

page 211 note 1 Art. 11, Appendix IV, No. 4.

page 211 note 2 See S. Mokrinsky, “Juridical Nature of Extradition and Model Treaty of the U. S. S. R.,” 6 (12), Sovietskoye Pravo (1924), 63.

page 211 note 3 There are 23 treaties which do not include such provisions.

page 211 note 4 (References are to Appendix I): Colombia-Chile, Art. 10, No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, Art. 13, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 13, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 13, No. 6; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 11; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, Art. 12, No. 16; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 16, No. 19; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 15, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 11, No. 27; France-Poland, Art. 14, No. 32; Austria-Norway, Art. 15, No. 34; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 39; Austria-Estonia, Art. 14, No. 45; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 14, No. 48; Albania-Greece, Art. 20, No. 49; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12, No. 53; Austria-Finland, Art. 13, No. 59; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 16, No. 60, also in Appendix V, No. 5; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 14, No. 62; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 14, No. 64; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 14, No. 65; Finland-Italy, Art. 12, No. 66; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 15, No. 67; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 14, No. 68; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 12, No. 69; Austria-Sweden, Art. 14, No. 72; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 15, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 15, No. 74; Poland-Sweden, Art. 17, No. 81; Italy-Panama, Art. 15, No. 82; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, No. 84; Italy-Brazil, Art. 14, No. 87, also in Appendix V, No. 4; Sweden-Czechoslovakia, Art. 16, No. 88; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 14, No. 89; Austria-Belgium, Art. 12, No. 90; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 15, No. 91; Austria-Latvia, Art. 13, No. 92; Brazil-Switzerland, Art. 15, No. 94; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 17, No. 95, also in Appendix V, No. 8; Estonia-Netherlands, Art. 14, No. 96.

page 211 note 5 Germany-Greece, Art. 14, Appendix I, No. 2; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, Appendix I, No. 86.

page 211 note 6 Austria-Hungary-Greece, Art. 14, Appendix I, No. 1.

page 211 note 7 Italy-Yugoslavia, Art. 13, Appendix I, No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 13, Appendix I, No. 12.

page 211 note 8 Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 12, Appendix I, No. 44; Latvia-Norway, Art. 15, Appendix I, No. 55.

page 211 note 9 France-San Marino, Art. 12, Appendix I, No. 43.

page 211 note 10 France-Latvia, Art. 15, Appendix I, No. 29.

page 212 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 13, No. 17; Finland-Denmark, Art. 17, No. 18; Finland-Latvia, Art. 14, No. 21; Estonia-Finland, Art. 14, No. 33; Finland-Norway, Art. 16, No. 35; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 17, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 14, No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 16, No. 79; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 14, No. 80.

page 212 note 2 Art. 38, Appendix VI, No. 1

page 212 note 3 Law October 8, 1921, Art. 59.

page 212 note 4 Art. 33, Appendix VI, No. 7

page 212 note 5 Law March 13, 1870, Art. 3.

page 212 note 6 Art. 32, Appendix VI, No. 13.

page 212 note 7 Art. 4, Appendix VI, No. 2.

page 212 note 8 Art. 28, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 212 note 9 Law April 6, 1875, Art. 20.

page 212 note 10 Art. 23, Appendix VI, No. 11.

page 212 note 11 Art. 8, Appendix VI, No. 9.

page 212 note 12 Law of Feb. 11, 1922, Art. 22.

page 212 note 13 Code of Penal Procedure, XXXIV, C.I., Art 614.

page 212 note 14 Law of Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 11.

page 212 note 15 Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 852.

page 212 note 16 Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 869.

page 212 note 17 Penal Code, Art. 852.