« PreviousContinue »
One of the High Contracting Parties shall permit a criminal delivered up by a third Power to the other Party to be conveyed in custody across its territory or over its territorial waters, except if the criminal be a native of the country to be crossed or in case the criminal in question be one covered by this Treaty. For the same purpose a simple notification containing the request for permission of transit and the designation of the offense occasioning the extradition shall be sufficient.
When, in a non-political criminal case, the testimony or summoning of witnesses resident or in transit through the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties be necessary for the evidence of a procedure, the other shall make demand through diplomatic or consular channels. That testimony shall be furnished in a rogatory letter coming from competent authority and accompanied by a translation in the language of the country where it shall be carried out. The expenses connected with those criminal documents shall be borne by the State receiving them.
The present Treaty shall be in force for an undetermined period, and shall continue in force one year after one of the High Contracting Parties shall have notified the other of any intention to denounce it.
It shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Rio de Janeiro or at ... after the legal formalities be fulfilled in each of the two countries. In witness whereof, the above mentioned Plenipotentiaries sign the present Treaty in duplicate, written in the Portuguese and unto affixing their seals in the city of Rio de Janeiro, this
language and thereday of
[Inclosure 2 Translation.] Decree denouncing the treaty.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE, July 25th, 1913.
Decree No. 10,355, of the 23rd of July, 1913, published the denunciation of the treaty of extradition of criminals signed in Rio de Janeiro between Brazil and the United States of America on the 14th of May, 1897, and the protocols and annexes of the 28th of May, 1898, and the 29th of May, 1911.1
The President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil makes public that from today the Treaty of Extradition of Criminals, signed in Rio de Janeiro between Brazil and the United States of America on the 14th of May, 1897, and the protocols and annexes of the 28th of May, 1898, and the 29th of May, 1911,' has ceased to be in effcet.
RIO DE JANEIRO, July 23, 1913, 92nd of Independence and 25th of the Republic.
File No. 211.32/6.
The Acting Secretary of State to the American Ambassador.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 29, 1913. SIR: The Department has received your No. 224, of July 29th last, reporting on the subject of the Brazilian law concerning extradition of criminals between foreign nations and Brazil.
In January last the Brazilian Ambassador wrote to the Department stating that the Brazilian Government had enacted a law (of
Should be 1901.
June 28, 1911), a copy of which he subsequently transmitted to the Department, which he stated carried out the policy of that Government in regard to extradition better than existing treaties do, and which involved the abrogation of all existing extradition treaties with Brazil. He stated that his Government would appreciate it if the United States would waive the stipulations of article 13 of the treaty between the United States and Brazil of May 14, 1897, requiring six months' notice of intention to terminate the treaty, and consider the treaty as having ceased to exist for all intents and purposes from the day of the receipt of his note.
The Department replied to the Ambassador, under date of February 28, last, stating that this Government has no power to waive the treaty requirement of six months' notice of intention to terminate its provisions. The Department in its note called attention to the fact that if the treaty should be abrogated the United States could not surrender a fugitive upon the request of the Government of Brazil. Other serious objections to the proposed Brazilian law were also pointed out. A copy of the Department's note is transmitted herewith for your information. No reply was received to the Department's note but it appears from your despatch, and its enclosure, that the Brazilian Government considers its communication of January 23 last as notice by the Government of its intention to terminate the treaty, the Diario Official having printed an executive decree, dated July 23, declaring that the President of Brazil had denounced the treaty.
It is stated in the note of the Brazilian Foreign Office that the "provisions of the law referred to are sufficient in themselves to guarantee that, in cases where the Government of Brazil shall address petitions for extradition to other countries, reciprocity in treatment of such petitions shall be afforded." "Nevertheless," the note continues, "for the satisfactory settlement of details it has been found convenient that new treaties shall be concluded."
The Foreign Office transmitted to you a project of an extradition treaty, said to be based upon the articles and principles established by the law referred to, and asked you to submit it to this Government," so that after careful consideration it may express its opinion upon it, informing me (the Brazilian Foreign Minister) whether it is acceptable in its present form, or whether slight modifications should be inserted which would not be antagonistic to the said articles of the law of June 28, 1911."
A careful examination has been made of this project, and it is found to contain provisions which render it unacceptable to this Government as the basis of a treaty between the two countries. The most conspicuous of these provisions are the following:
1. Article 6, which provides that, if the penalty incurred by the fugitive criminal be that of death or corporal punishment, extradition shall be granted by Brazil only on the condition that the penalty be commuted by the competent authorities to that of imprisonment.
The objections of this Government to such a provision as this were very fully set forth in the correspondence in 1910, at which time the Brazilian Congress was considering the extradition law. (See instruction No. 183, of January 21, 1910, and the accompanying memorandum.)
2. The project contains no list of offenses for which extradition is to be granted, but provides generally for extradition for all offenses the penalty for which is one year's imprisonment or more.
It is probable that this provision might yield to negotiation more readily than that first enumerated.
The Department would be glad to find some common ground upon which an extradition treaty between the two countries may be concluded, but fails to perceive such ground in the rigid provisions of the Brazilian law or project.
I am [etc.]
J. B. MOORE.
PROPOSAL BY BRAZIL OF A SPECIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES REGULATING THE PROSECUTION OF COUNTERFEITERS WHEN NOT SUBJECT TO EXTRADITION.
File No. 211.32/7.
The Ambassador of Brazil to the Secretary of State.
BRAZILIAN EMBASSY, Washington, October 31, 1913.
MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: Law No. 2416, of June 28, 1911, of Brazil, besides regulating the extradition of criminals, lays down (articles 13 and 14') the rules required for the prosecution and trial of nationals, and, in part, of aliens when they commit abroad any of the crimes mentioned in the aforesaid law.
The crimes of counterfeiting money, securities and credit paper of the Federal Government, States and Banks are included among those that come under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts (paragraphs c and d of article 13).
While Brazilian criminals, when absent from the territory of the Nation, may be prosecuted until sentenced (Article 13) foreign criminals can only be prosecuted and tried when they come to Brazil, freely or under duress.
In consequence of this-and of the impunity enjoyed by counterfeiters of Brazilian money, securities and credit paper who are out of Brazil, if because the case affects foreign money, the local law should be incompetent to prosecute and try:
1. when they never return or come to Brazil;
2. when the Govenment of the country where the offense was committed refuses to surrender its nationals, the offender being one of these:
3. when in the absence of a treaty, the offender cannot be surrendered
ny Government desires that this judicial situation between us be made known to your excellency and that you inform me whether there are in the general legislation or any special law of the Central States provisions for the prosecution and trial of counterfeiters of
See p. 27-28.
foreign money and credit papers, including seals and adhesive stamps. And even should such provisions exist, my Government wishes to know whether the Government of the United States would be disposed to enter with us into a special agreement regulating the prosecution and trial of such counterfeiters, when not subject to extradition, so as to avoid obstacles to the action of practice in the two countries, to the detriment of international judicial assistance. I avail [etc.]
D. DA GAMA.
File No. 211.32/7.
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador of Brazil. No. 36.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 8, 1913. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 31st of October by which you inform me that your Government desires that the judicial situation between the two countries, as set forth by you, regarding the immunity from prosecution and trial enjoyed by counterfeiters of Brazilian money, securities and paper credit, who are out of Brazil, be made known to the Department and that you be advised whether there are in the general legislation or any special law of the United States provisions for the prosecution and trial of counterfeiters of foreign money and credit paper, including seals and adhesive stamps. You add that, even should such provisions exist, your Government wishes to know whether this Government would be disposed to enter with it into a special agreement regulating the prosecution and trial of such counterfeiters, when not subject to extradition.
In reply I beg to say that provision is made in the general laws of the United States for the prosecution and punishment of any person who "within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, with intent to defraud," counterfeits bonds, certificates, obligations or other securities of any foreign government, or any Treasury note, bill or promise to pay issued by such foreign government intended to circulate as money. A copy of the Revised Penal Code of the United States, approved March 4, 1909, is transmitted to you and your particular attention is invited to the provisions of sections 156 to 161 (chapter seven thereof). No treaty agreement would be required to secure the prosecution and trial of Brazilians or other foreigners violating the provisions of these laws.
As the territorial theory of crime obtains in the United States, it would not be practicable for this Government to enter into a treaty arrangement with the Brazilian Government providing for the prosecution of persons for committing in Brazil the crimes of counterfeiting Brazilian money, securities, etc.
For the Secretary of State:
VALORIZATION OF COFFEE.
File No. 832.61333/76.
The Acting Attorney General to the Secretary of State.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., July 12, 1911.
SIR: Will you kindly give formal authority to your Mr. Joseph J. Slechta, Vice and Deputy Consul General of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, to give to this Department, and particularly to Mr. William T. Chantland, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, who has the matter in charge, all the facts and information he has relative to the Brazilian coffee valorization scheme.
File No. 832.61333/76.
J. A. FOWLER.
The Secretary of State to the American Vice Consul General at Rio
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 20, 1911.
SIR: I inclose a copy of a letter received from the Department of Justice, together with a copy of this Department's reply thereto,' relating to the subject of information which the Department of Justice desires you to furnish concerning the Brazilian coffee valorization scheme.
You are instructed to furnish to the Department of Justice such information as may be in your possession, when called upon by that Department.
I am [etc.]
For Mr. Knox:
Senate Doc. No. 36. 63d Cong., 1st Sess.
Report of Wm. T. Chantland, Special Assistant to the Attorney General.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, September 6, 1911.
Hon. J. A. FoWLER,
Assistant to the Attorney General.
SIR: On July 11, 1911, I submitted a report on coffee valorization. Further consideration has only strengthened the conclusions therein reached. As indicated by you to me personally, I submit herewith a somewhat more detailed report of the transactions and facts.
The world now consumes a million and a half bags of coffee, of 60 kilos each, per month, or 198,000,000 pounds of coffee per month, or