Mr. Romero to Mr. Bayard.
Washington, January 17, 1889. (Received January 18.)
Mr. Secretary: I duly received your note of the 11th ultimo, whereby you answered that of this legation of the 8th relative to the application which, in pursuance of instructions received from my Government, I made to you for the extradition of Rafael Trevino, who is charged with the crime of embezzlement, committed in Mexico, and whereby you informed me of the views of the United States Government with respect to the formalities to be fulfilled by my Government in order to secure the extradition of criminals.
I at once communicated your aforesaid note to Mr. Mariscal, secretary of foreign relations of the United States of Mexico, and, in obedience to instructions received from him dated City of Mexico, January [Page 620] 3, 1889, I have the honor to inform you in reply that the Government of Mexico can have no objections to the President of the United States consulting the judicial authorities, if that is required by the laws of this country, as to whether there is or is not ground for the extradition that is asked for, or to the issuance of a warrant by those authorities for the arrest of the individual who is wanted. On the contrary, it is perfectly willing that this course should be taken. My Government can not, however, admit that, in order to secure the extradition of any person, it is obliged to do anything more than what is stipulated in article 1 of the treaty of December 11, 1861; that is to say, anything more than to present its requisition, through its diplomatic agent, in ordinary cases, and through the frontier authorities in cases which have occurred on the frontier. The diplomatic requisition mentioned in this article can not be addressed to any authority other than the Secretary of State, and Mexico has not bound herself to apply to the courts of this country likewise.
My Government thinks that the laws of the United States are not binding upon Mexico, for the same reason that any laws that Mexico might enact concerning extradition would not be binding upon this Government. Although any nation has a right to make the surrender of criminals by it conditional, other countries are obliged to submit to the conditions thus established only when they have concluded no treaty; when a treaty exists, however, the demanding country is obliged to submit to no conditions save those to which it has agreed.
If the consul-general of Mexico at New York applied to the courts of this country in the extradition case of George Benson, he did so unofficially, and in so irregular a manner that the course pursued by him, although tolerated by my Government in consideration of the end desired, was never approved by it.
In the case of the extradition, for which application was made to this Government, of Francisco G. Casanova, in the year 1874, this legation addressed the Department of State, and not the judicial authorities, in order to secure the arrest, to the end that extradition might be granted. The same course was taken in the case of Francisco Querejasu, in 1881.
In the first of the cases cited certain lawyers in New York were instructed to endeavor to prevent the escape of the criminals, and to assist the judicial authorities in their proceedings, while, in the second case, the consul-general of Mexico was so instructed; this, however, in no wise implies that the Government of Mexico considers itself under obligations to apply to the courts for the arrest or surrender of the delinquent.
Be pleased, etc.,