opinion is that no special consideration, arriving at a thorough and unbiased investigation of these conditions, has been manifested by the authorities. I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, WM. W. HANDLEY, American Consul General. [The British report is printed in Africa, No. 1 (1909), Cd. 4466.] No. 429.] Minister Wilson to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, Brussels, November 27, 1908. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith three copies of No. 2 of the Official Bulletin of the Belgian Kongo, which contains the decree1 organizing the colonial council of Belgium. The principal points of this decree are as follows: First. Provision is made that the minister for colonies shall be president of the council; if the latter is absent or unable to preside, his duties shall be discharged by the secretary general or by a director general designated for that purpose. Second. A secretary appointed by the King is attached to the council as a consulting member. He shall make the procès-verbal of the meetings and sign the same after their approval by the council. The secretary and the members of the council are to be paid a monetary compensation with free transportation on the railways to and from the place of meeting. Third. The department of colonies, must transmit to the office of the secretary all proposed decrees and, in general, all questions which the King may desire to submit to the examination of the council. It shall also transmit within 10 days following their issuance the decrees issued in cases of urgency. Fourth. The council must make its report within one month from the day on which its first sitting occurs. Fifth. The council has the right to take definite decisions when a majority of its members is present, but such decision shall be valid only when a majority of the regular members is present. I have, etc., No. 434.] HENRY LANE WILSON. Minister Wilson to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN LEGATION, Brussels, December 3, 1908. 1 SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith copies of the official report of the session of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives of November 24, which contains the proposed budget for the administration of the Belgian Kongo. 1 Not printed. The proposed budget appropriates 962,450 francs or $192,450 for the central or Belgian administration, to be met by a charge against the revenue of the foundation of the crown; 36,094,036 francs or $7,218,807 for the current expenses of the local or active administration of the Kongo, to be met by a charge against the receipts thereof, and 8,423,300 francs or $1,684,660 for the extraordinary expenses growing out of the treaty of annexation, to be met by a loan. A tabulated statement1 showing the purposes to which the respective items of $7,218,807 and $1,684,660 will be applied accompanies the "exposé des motifs "1 of the minister. This includes the extraordinary expenses incurred under the treaty of annexation, salaries for civil and military employees, and all of the other expenses which would naturally accompany the installation and maintenance of a new régime in the Kongo. HENRY LANE WILSON. I have, etc., [To be continued in Foreign Relations, 1909.] 76851°- -FB 1908—38 1 Not printed. MEXICO. INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE X OF THE EXTRADITION TREATY File No. 12208. No. 152.] The Mexican Chargé to the Secretary of State. [Translation.] MEXICAN EMBASSY, SIR: By special direction of my Government, I have the honor to inform you that the department of foreign relations of Mexico wishes to obtain a decision of the department in your worthy charge, by which uniformity would be brought in both countries into the interpretation of Article X of the treaty for the extradition of criminals in force between Mexico and the United States, in that which relates to the period of 40 days, following the provisional arrest of the offender, and granted for the production of the documents on which the request of extradition is founded. It appears that the rule followed in this country by the department in your worthy charge and the Department of Justice is to count the above-stated period of 40 days from the date of the arrest of the offender to the day of the presentation of the papers to the magistrate in charge of the case, and not to the Department of State. The department of foreign relations of my Government does not concur in that interpretation of the article already cited, for the following reasons: First. Because the interpretation of the said department has been to the advantage of the Government of this country, that the presentation of the papers to the Mexican Government through the said department is sufficient to have it understood that the requirement has been met within the period even though, in the subsequent stages of the procedure, more or less time would elapse before the papers finally reach the authority that is to conduct the extradition proceedings; and, as a matter of fact, the American Embassy quite frequently delivers its papers at the said department on the last, or few days before the last of the 40 days, in the extraditions it requests. This interpretation seems equitable in that, after presentation to the Department of State, any delay that may occur will not come from the Government making the request, but from the local authorities. who may put off forwarding them, or even from mishap or difficult inland communications. Second. Because Article X of the treaty does not provide that the documents shall be delivered within 40 days to the commissioner or magistrate who is to conduct the extradition proceedings, but says that the Government on which the requisition is made "shall endeavor to procure the provisional arrest of such criminal and to keep him in safe custody for such time as may be practicable, not exceeding 40 days, to await the production of the documents," whence it must be inferred that the Government on which the requisition is made must wait 40 days until the documents are presented to it, and that this requirement is fulfilled at the time when they are delivered to the Department of State, which represents the Government. Wishing that you may, in view of the reasons above set forth, be pleased to formulate a decision that the above-discussed point in Article X of the treaty be uniformly interpreted in the indicated sense in both countries, I have pleasure in renewing to you, etc. File No. 12208/1. José F. GODOY. The Acting Secretary of State to the Mexican Ambassador. No. 295.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 16, 1908. EXCELLENCY: Referring to the Mexican Embassy's note No. 152 of March 3, 1908, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a letter from the Attorney General in which he expresses the opinion that the 40 days during which a fugitive from justice may be detained under the terms of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico," to await the production of documents upon which the claim for extradition is founded," must be considered as meaning 40 days prior to the production of the documents to the State Department in the United States or the corresponding branch of the Mexican Government, and that if the said documents are thus produced within 40 days, the suspected criminal has no absolute right of release under the terms of the treaty, but may be detained for a reasonable additional period to afford time for an investigation into his probable guilt or innocence. The department will, accordingly, conform to the opinion of the Attorney General, as expressed in his letter, in all future extradition SIR: Your note of April 17 transmits a note from the Mexican Embassy of the 3d ultimo, requesting a ruling by this Government upon the meaning of that part of Article X of the extradition treaty of 1899 which specifies the period during which fugitives shall be detained pending the production of the documents necessary for the hearing and determination of a demand for extradition; and you request my opinion on this question because of its importance and because of the desirability of uniformity of interpretation on the part of both Governments. Article X of the treaty of extradition with Mexico of February 22, 1899 (31 Stat.. 1818, 1825), provides: "On being informed by telegraph or otherwise, through the diplomatic channel, that a warrant has been issued by competent authority for the arrest of a fugitive criminal charged with any of the crimes enumerated in the foregoing articles of this treaty, and on being assured from the same source that a requisition for the surrender of such criminal is about to be made, accompanied by such warrant and duly authenticated depositions, or copies thereof, in support of the charge, each Government shall endeavor to procure the provisional arrest of such criminal and to keep him in safe custody for such time as may be practicable, not exceeding forty days, to await the production of the documents upon which the claim for extradition is founded." Under this article the time elapsing between provisional arrest and final surrender to the demanding Government is to be divided into three parts, the period between arrest and production of documents that between production of documents and committal for surrender, and that between committal and actual surrender to the officials or agents of the demanding Government. The precise question raised by the Mexican note relates to the first period, and is whether the treaty requirements as to the 40 days detention are met by production of the necessary extradition documents to the respective state departments of the two Governments within the 40 days specified. It appears that the accustomed course, in general, under our extradition treaties with foreign nations is for the foreign government to submit its papers through its proper officer directly to the extradition magistrate, and then, if the fugitive is committed for surrender, the papers are forwarded by the magis trate to the State Department for examination and approval. Ordinarily, then, this is the first point at which the State Department bears an official relation to the documents and evidence upon which the extradition of the alleged fugitive is sought. In the case of Mexico, however, the procedure and practice actually followed has been different, and it has been the uniform practice for the Mexican diplomatic authorities to submit their papers first to the State Department, and the papers are then returned to the Mexican Embassy without formal action at that stage, with the suggestion that the embassy forward them at once to the extradition magistrate; and on its part the Mexican Government has always held that the production of our papers within 40 days to its foreign office satisfies the provisions of the treaty. The question is practically important because, in view of the long distances and limited facilities for communication with Mexico, it would often be difficult or even impossible to transmit the papers through the diplomatic channels to the respective State Departments and thence to the extradition magistrate in some outlying district all within 40 days. It must then be considered whether the language of the treaty justifies the view that the production of papers contemplated by the treaty is production to the respective foreign offices, for if so production to the State Department of this Government in the case of a demand for extradition by the Government of Mexico within 40 days is sufficient. It will be noted that Article X provides that the information regarding the issuance of a warrant by competent authority shall be conveyed "through the diplomatic channel," and that the Government thus addressed "on being assured from the same source that a requisition for the surrender of such criminal is about to be made * * * shall endeavor to procure the provisional arrest of such criminal," etc. This language seems to contemplate that the whole course of proceeding up to the production of the documents is between the two Governments, and the reference to "the diplomatic channel" points to the foreign offices of the two Governments. I understand the Mexican Government has always held that production of our papers within 40 days to its foreign office satisfies the provisions of the treaty, and its present practice is in accordance with this view, and, as above stated, the existing conditions in Mexico make it difficult, if not impossible, to transmit the papers through the diplomatic channel to the Mexican extradition magistrate in an outlying district within 40 days. The purpose of this treaty is the highly salutary one of securing the arrest and punishment of lawbreakers and dangerous members of the community. It should be so construed, in my opinion, as to give effect to this purpose. Moreover, it must be supposed that the two Governments acted and agreed together with the peculiar conditions existing in Mexico present to the minds of both. If one construction assures a reasonable opportunity for each Government to furnish the other proofs necessary to justify the continued detention of suspected criminals, while another construction facilitates the escape of fugitives from justice and tends to impede the punishment of crime, the former should certainly be preferred in the absence of compelling words to the contrary. In find no such words here. The prisoner is to be detained "not exceeding 40 days" for a specified purpose, namely, "to await the production of the |