The criminal law of this country asserts jurisdiction over all offenses committed within the territorial limits of the State or Territory enacting the law, but over no crimes committed beyond it. An American citizen, therefore, committing an offense in Europe, cannot be punished for that offense by the infliction of any punishment under American laws, and will escape punishment altogether if he can claim the protection of his Government against a demand for extradition. On motives of general policy it would not be thought worth while to authorize any intervention in favor of a criminal in such case, even if he were a native-born citizen. In the case of a naturalized citizen, the representative of the Government should further inquire whether he be a bona fide naturalized citizen, and whether he has done any act indicating a purpose to forfeit his acquired citizenship. In the present case the Department, referring to its former instructions, confides in your discretion and good judgment. I am, &c., HAMILTON FISH. No. 136.] No. 499. Mr. Gorham to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The Hague, April 25, 1874. (Received May 19.) SIR: On the 25th ultimo, in my No. 130, I gave you some account of what had then recently transpired in the Second Chamber of the StatesGeneral relative to the war in Acheen, noticing events in that connection up to the adjournment for the Easter holidays. I now take occasion to transmit a summary of expressions on the same subject, so far as made in open session, which followed the re-opening on the 16th instant. In order that papers withheld by the government, as well as those submitted previous to the adjournment, might be at the disposition of the Chamber, it was resolved to go into "general committee,” (secret session,) so that what transpired during the first four days is little more than conjectural to the general public. But as the plea for secrecy was urged on the ground that a portion of the papers related to matters of an international character, I am strengthened in the conviction that the ministry has been more than willing from the first that members of the legislature should get an impression that foreign powers, partienlarly that of the United States, had an eye to the commerce of Acheen, and that great haste was necessary on the part of the government in order to forestall combinations liable to be made prejudicial to its colonial policy in the East. Great significance, I know, has been given to the early doings of our consul at Singapore and also to the letter of Admiral Jenkins. Whether equal distrust of any other power has been felt or expressed I do not know; but that the fancied intentions of foreign governments were considered at great length in their secret deliberations, and claimed by the government in justification of an early declaration of the war, I have sufficient evidence to believe. On re-opening the Chamber to the public, it was immediately observed that the tone of the opposition had been materially modified during the period of seclusion. One of its members took early occasion to remark. that though the discussion had been long and animated, the result had not been unfavorable to the administration. He concluded his remarks, however, by putting to the minister of colonies the following questions: I. Is your decision to bring the empire of Acheen under the direct supremacy of the Netherlands-is this decision irrevocable or is it not? II. If yes, will a third expedition be necessary? III. Do you consider yourself strong enough, both in the army and navy, to enforce annexation? IV. What pecuniary advantage to this country do you expect from annexation? These questions, as will be observed, were not immediately noticed. The next speaker blamed the government for making no better preparation for the war after knowing it was inevitable. Another complained of the obligation of secrecy imposed upon members. "Formerly," he said, "we had to say we 'Know nothing'; but now, while knowing all, are allowed to say nothing." Mr. Van Houten, a young member of the advanced liberal party, thought the government had done its duty. "Treaty obligations to England imposed the duty of preventing piracy in the Indian Sea about Acheen. In the last year the government has moved quicker; perhaps a little too quick. The East India government became afraid of the machinations of the Acheenese and had needlessly alarmed the home government." As to any foreign government interfering with their relations with Acheen, he wished "the government had expressed a disbelief, in the language of General Grant, who, on being told during one of his great battles near Richmond that his line was broken, answered, 'impossible." Too much importance had been given, he thought, to rumors of interference. "The Netherlands sea-police," he said, "extends over the whole archipelago, and when anything goes wrong there complaint is made to this country, but not to Italy, Turkey, or America." He thought "a nation sometimes had rights in the absence of direct authority." America had organized territorial governments regardless of Indian tribes inhabiting the country and claiming it as their own, and would be very unwilling that a foreign government should make treaties with those tribes or in anywise hinder the conversion of their hunting-grounds into corn-fields for the greater benefit of mankind. As to the future, the same speaker thought the government could not desist until its authority has given to navigation and commerce security against piracy in all that part of the Indian Sea. A combination of dissentients might overthrow the ministry, but he felt sure that the material was wanting for a new one of equal force. Mr. Gratama, liberal, defended the government, and favored annexation. Mr. Insinger, conservative, claimed that the ministry had not the full confidence of the people or of their representatives, but that a motion of distrust would be inopportune, and he had, therefore, no intention of applying the test. Admiral Fabius, conservative, was opposed to annexation. France wanted to annex Mexico, and what was the result? The policy was bad, and he hoped the government would come to that conclusion. Baron Gericke, minister of foreign affairs, claimed that if the government communicated a portion of its correspondence under an injunc tion of secrecy, it was more for the welfare of the country than for the conservation of the cabinet. He alluded to negotiations opened at Singa- pore, meaning, no doubt, what I have before referred to, but claimed that they had not influenced the course of the government. Mr. Van de Pulto, minister of colonies, after replying to several members who had spoken in the interest of the opposition, came to the interrogatories of Mr. Heydensyck, noticing particularly only the first. He said, in substance, that annexation would be enforced only when there shall be no other way to obtain what must be obtained. He concluded by urging the opposition, if still dissatisfied, to press the cabinet question. Many others participated in the discussion, some for and some against the administration. The result must have been gratifying to the ministry, composed, in my judgment, of very excellent men. I have, &c., CHARLES T. GORHAM. No. 142.] No. 500. Mr. Gorham to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, The Hague, May 25, 1874. (Received June 15.) SIR: The national fête commemorative of the coronation of William III, on the 12th of May, 1849, has had such an absorbing interest throughout the Netherlands during the last two weeks that little has transpired unconnected with some demonstration of loyalty to the House of Orange. Amsterdam, being the capital and the city where His Majesty was crowned, was naturally designated as the place where the ceremonies incident to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the event should be observed. At 10 o'clock on the morning of the 12th the King and Queen, the Prince of Orange, Princes Alexander, Henry, and Frederick, the Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar, and the Grand Duchess, (King's sister,) a large number of courtiers, cabinet ministers, the corps diplomatic, and many others, titled and untitled, assembled at the "new church" for the observance of such ceremonies as had been prepared for the occasion. After the performance of a grand cantata came a succession of felicitations to His Majesty; first by the two Chambers of States General; afterward by the mayor and council of Amsterdam, the governors of the different provinces, and other civil and municipal organizations, all breathing a spirit of loyalty, but of manly independence. At the conclusion of his address the burgomaster of Amsterdam presented to His Majesty an elegant portfolio, containing a national gift of 100,000 florins, with the names of the contributors, which was graciously acknowledged, and immediately set apart by His Majesty for the benefit of the disabled in the war of Acheen. This popular announcement was greeted with loud huzzas, and cries of "Vive le Roi," interrupted only by the louder cries of the King, of "Vive la Neederland," and this was instantly seized as the key-note to a still wilder enthusiasm. At the conclusion of the services at church the royal family returned to the palace, near by, where they were soon joined by the Czar of Rus sia, who had come to congratulate in person his royal cousin. Á marked feature in the programme of the day was a lengthy cavalcade, historical and allegorical, gotten up at great expense, in illustra tion of important periods in Netherland history between the beginning of the sixteenth century and the French revolution. A banquet at six, followed by a general illumination and pyrotechnic display, concluded the public demonstrations of the day. On the 15th the royal family returned to the Hague, where their reception was all they could have desired. On the 19th they participated at a banquet given by the city authorities, and at which the king responded at considerable length to a toast offered by the burgomaster, and with marked oratorical ability. On the 21st the jubilee was observed at Rotterdam. The weather was propitious, the people full of loyal enthusiasm, and the display such as rarely occurs with a people not more demonstrative than the Dutch are reputed to be. There was an evident effort to rival what had been done elsewhere, and it might be unjust to say that it failed of success. Yesterday the king retired to the Loo, where he was welcomed with extraordinary tokens of respect. Politically the whole has been interesting. At Amsterdam, at the Hague, at Rotterdam, all seemed in accord. Every house was illaminated, each displayed national and dynastic colors, and everybody appeared anxious to add éclat to the occasion. A few insist that it is not the King, but the dynasty of Orange-Nassau that excites the homage of the people; that no recognized head of this venerable house could receive less; and that out of the line of William the Silent no king would be possible with this people. That an almost superstitious veneration is cherished by Hollanders for the dynasty under which they live there is no doubt, neither should there be respecting the popularity of their reigning sovereign. His policy is peaceful and the country has prospered under his rule. The people govern themselves, in fact, and the King is willing they should, so long as they do not run after strange gods or trespass on the perogatives of the Crown. And I have little doubt, should he submit his kingship to popular vote, that he would be re-elected to reign over the Netherlands by a majority little short of the whole number of voters in the realm. In conclusion, judging from what has passed under my observation from time to time, especially of late, I believe it fair to assume that no people come nearer being satisfied with their country, their government, their sovereign, and themselves, than the inhabitants of this busy little kingdom. I am, &c., No. 501. CHARLES T. GORHAM. Mr. Westenberg to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE NETHERLANDS, Washington, November 5, 1873. (Received November 6.) Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: I have been instructed by my govern. ment to address your excellency requesting you to be pleased to furnish me with some information touching the nature and sense of a stipulation inserted in several extradition treaties which have recently been concluded by the Government of the United States. It is provided in these treaties that the extradition can take place only "when the fact of the commission of the crime shall be so estab lished as to justify their apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime had been committed in the country where the persons so accused shall be found, in all of which the tribunals of said country shall proceed and decide according to their own laws." This stipulation is not found in the treaty between the Netherlands and the United States, which was signed August 21, 1857, the ratifications of which, however, have never been exchanged, and which has consequently never gone into effect. My government would now be glad to be informed, 1st, whether the meaning of this stipulation is that, in order to obtain the extradition of an accused person, it is necessary to transmit the depositions made under oath by the witnesses, before the judge conducting the preliminary proceedings, as is required in England; 2d, what may have been the reason why this stipulation, which is found in all subsequent treaties concluded by the United States, was not inserted in the one concluded with the Netherlands in 1857; 3d, whether there exists, in the United States, any uniform criminal procedure; that is to say, whether the same laws and rules are in force in relation to criminal procedure in all the States, or whether the laws concerning such procedure are different in the different States. Offering your excellency my thanks in advance for such information as you may be pleased to give me upon these various points, I avail myself of this occasion to renew to you, Mr. Secretary of State, the assurances of my very high conideration. WESTENBERG. No. 502. Mr. Westenberg to Mr. Fish. [Translation.] LEGATION OF THE NETHERLANDS, Washington, November 10, 1873. (Received November 11.) Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: By my communication of the 19th of February last I had the honor to inform your excellency of the adop tion, by law, of a new tariff of import and export duties for the Dutch East Indies, whereby discriminating duties are to be abolished in prin ciple from January 1, 1874, and whereby, moreover, all import duties which are henceforth to be uniform are, with few exceptious, to be reduced to the moderate rate of 6 per cent. ad valorem, while the export duties which are levied upon indigo, coffee, sugar, and tin, when shipped to foreign countries, have been considerably reduced. On that occasion I transmitted to your excellency a copy of this law,* promising to send an official translation at a future time. In informing your excellency of these new regulations, so eminently liberal, which had been adopted by the government of the Netherlands, I expressed, in its name, a feeling of coufidence that the Government of the United States would be disposed to abolish in favor of the Netherlands the discriminating duty of 10 per cent. which is levied in the United States upon productions from countries lying east of the Cape of Good Hope, and imported into America indirectly from European ports. I added that the government of the Netherlands thought itself the *See report on Commercial Relations for 1873, page 881. |