For the employers: Mr. Henry Dennison, President, Dennison Manufacturing For labor: Advisers: Mr. Daniel W. Tracy, President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers For the Government delegates: Mr. Witt Bowden, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor Mr. Hugh S. Hanna, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor Mr. William G. Rice, Jr., United States Labor Commis- Miss Margaret H. Schoenfeld, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mr. Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., Solicitor, Department of Miss Irene Till, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of For the employers' delegate: Mr. E. Arthur Baldwin, Paris, France Mr. Sam A. Lewisohn, New York, N. Y. Mr. James Howe Volkmann, Zürich, Switzerland Mr. Robert T. Caldwell, of the firm of Caldwell and Gray, For the labor delegate: Mr. Marion H. Hedges, Washington, D. C. Mr. Spencer Miller, editor, Worker's Education Quarterly, Mr. Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., has been appointed as this Government's representative to attend the Seventy-first Session of the Governing Body of the International Labor Office which will be convened at Geneva on May 31, 1935. Nicaragua POSTAL POSTAL UNION OF THE AMERICAS AND SPAIN9 The American Legation at Managua reported by a despatch dated May 13, 1935, that the convention of the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain, signed at Madrid November 10, 1931, was ratified by the President of Nicaragua on May 6, 1935. • See Bulletin No. 67, April 1935, p. 36. According to a despatch from the Legation dated May 16, 1935, the agreement regarding parcel post, signed at Madrid November 10, 1931, was approved by the Nicaraguan Congress on June 7, 1934, and ratified by the President on May 6, 1935. UNIVERSAL POSTAL CONVENTION OF 1934 10 The Egyptian Chargé d'Affaires at Washington transmitted to the Secretary of State with a note dated May 27, 1935, a schedule of the ratifications and accessions to the universal postal convention signed at Cairo March 20, 1934. This list supplements as follows the information which was published on page 13 of Bulletin No. 66, March 1935: STATUS OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL POSTAL CONVENTION OF 1934 AND SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENTS • Acts are indicated as follows: A: Universal postal convention and annexes C: Arrangement concerning parcel post D: Arrangement concerning postal money orders E: Arrangement concerning postal checking accounts F: Arrangement concerning postal collection accounts G: Arrangement concerning subscriptions to newspapers The ratification of Italy includes also Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Eritrea, and Somaliland. TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION CONVENTION (TREATY SERIES, No. 867)11 Panama By a note dated May 6, 1935, the Spanish Ambassador at Washington informed the Secretary of State that the instrument of ratification by Panama of the international telecommunication convention signed at Madrid December 9, 1932, was deposited with the Minister of State at Madrid on March 29, 1935. The ratification includes also the general radio regulations and the additional radio regulations. 10 See Bulletin No. 66, March 1935, p. 12. "See Bulletin No. 67, April 1935, p. 37. JUDICIAL DECISIONS EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE OF JANUARY 6, 19091 DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT United States ex rel. Donnelly v. Mulligan 2 Appellant was indicted by the New York County Grand Jury on December 16, 1930, and was arrested in France on July 18, 1933. He was there tried for a crime against the French Government and imprisoned. After the expiration of his sentence in October 1933 on application of the United States he was extradited under the provisions of the extradition treaty of 1909. On May 21, 1934, he was discharged because the complaining witness against him died and the district attorney could not proceed with the trial of the indictment. Within 30 days the United States marshal, at the request of the Canadian Government, arrested him for extradition to Canada on a charge pending there which arose prior to his extradition from France to the United States. Appellant sought to sustain the writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the lower court for the reason that his imprisonment was invalid in that he was held in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and France. On this appeal there was submitted a copy of a communication addressed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Canadian Legation at Paris. This communication was in reply to a request for extradition of the appellant to the Canadian Government and reads in part as follows: "In case the Canadian Government has the intention at some future date to request the extradition of Donnelly from the Government of the United States, the Government of the Republic would be glad to support such a request." Article 7 of the extradition treaty between the United States and France reads as follows: "No person surrendered by either of the High contracting Parties to the other shall be triable or tried or be punished for any crime or Treaty Series, No. 561; 37 Stat. L. (pt. 2), 1526. 274 Fed. (220). Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. offence committed prior to his extradition, other than the offence for which he was delivered up, nor shall such person be arrested or detained on civil process for a cause accrued before extradition, unless he has been at liberty for one month after having been tried, to leave the country, or, in case of conviction, for one month after having suffered his punishment or having been pardoned." The opinion of the court (no. 193), December 3, 1934, is in part as follows: "The appellant had a place of asylum in France and could be deprived of this only by the action of the French government. France, under international law, has a right to give him asylum or take it from him. Asylum necessarily means absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of another state, subject only to the will of the state of asylum, and it must be borne in mind that the right of the state of asylum is sovereign and unlimited, excepting in so far as the state freely imposes limits on itself. We are not advised officially whether or not France would deliver the appellant to Canada at the latter's request. Questions of treaty between Great Britain and France are involved. Conceding that the crime for which Canada seeks to try the appellant is an extraditable offense within the terms of the extradition treaty of Great Britain and France, we are not aware that the terms of the treaty would be satisfied. We do not know that sufficient evidence would be introduced to satisfy France that the appellant is a proper subject for extradition. Evidence which might be sufficient for this country might or might not be sufficient for France. France, as his state of asylum, has a sovereign right to safeguard and protect its sovereignty, even though that may be construed as an injustice to the world; it has a right to decide for itself whether it will deliver the appellant, who sought its sheltering asylum, to a demanding state. The only impingement upon this asylum has been the extradition for trial of the indictment found against the appellant in New York. As stated in Johnson v. Browne, 205 U. S. 309, 321, 27 S. Ct. 539, 543, 51 L. Ed. 816, 10 Ann. Cas. 636: "While the escape of criminals is, of course, to be very greatly deprecated, it is still most important that a treaty of this nature between sovereignties should be construed in accordance with the highest good faith, and that it should not be sought, by doubtful construction of some of its provisions, to obtain the extradition of a person for one offense and then punish him for another and different offense.' "If a prisoner may not be subject to arrest on civil process after extradition from a foreign country (In re Reinitz, supra), by the same reasoning he cannot be arrested and held for extradition (not a criminal offense) to a third country. "It should be borne in mind that, while the formalities attending an extradition are purely administrative functions which the accused and the state of asylum can properly waive, the diplomatic guaranties in the instant case, the 30-day period of immunity-which are accorded for the sole benefit of the accused, cannot be violated by the demanding state, without the consent of the surrendering state. Puente, Note on International Extradition, 26 Ill. Law Review (19311932) 210, 215. "Under the terms granting extradition, the prisoner has one month after he has been at liberty to leave the country and return to France. If at the end of that time he has not done so, the United States is free to consider the request of Canada for his extradition to that country. "The order is reversed, and writ sustained." |