ities to favor and not oppose such work. As to the particular advantage to accrue to the Chinese or to other governments by granting concessions to any particular company or individuals, or as to the form of agreements in such cases, the Department, being without information, withholds any expression of opinion.

The Department has full confidence, however, that, in dealing with this subject, general public considerations will be considered as superior to the advantage of any particular corporation or body.

I am, sir, &c.,

JOHN L. CADWALADER,

Acting Secretary.

No. 174.

No. 424.]

Mr. Cadwalader to Mr. Seward.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, October 23, 1874.

SIR Referring to the case of Walter Jackson, and to your dispatch 800, of August 27, with your correspondence with Mr. Williams and with the colonial secretary at Hong-Kong on the subject, as attached thereto, I have to say that this Department has again considered the questions submitted in the light of all the facts now presented by you. It appears that Walter Jackson was charged with piracy and assault on board the Satsuma, a British vessel, that he escaped from Hong-Kong, was arrested upon a telegram at Shanghai, and as a citizen of the United States claimed your protection; that you thereupon detained him, and in answer to the demand for his rendition, made by the Hong-Kong authorities, informed them that you would consider a request for his delivery, but stated that you were under no obligation to deliver him except in accordance with the rules for extradition of criminals as settled by treaty between the two governments. The Hong-Kong government, learning that Jackson was a citizen of the United States, forthwith declined to proceed further against him, and afterward submitted to you a copy of an opinion of the attorney-general concerning your action in the matter.

The simple question, therefore, is, had you a right to detain a fugitive from British justice at Hong-Kong, found within your consular jurisdiction, or to deliver him up under the extradition treaty between this country and Great Britain? Other questions doubtless arose in your correspendence with Mr. Williams, but that is the important and vital point. In the opinion of the Department, no doubt can exist on this question. The extradition treaty between Great Britain and the United States entitles the British authorities to demand the rendition of persons charged with the commission of the particular crimes mentioned in the treaty, within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, who shall seek an asylum or be found within the territorial limits of the United States, upon a compliance with the provisions of the treaty and of the law to enforce such provisions.

In the case of Walter Jackson all the elements were wanting except the offense charged against him, and extradition proceedings were entirely inapplicable to the case.

Upon the facts shown by you he had escaped from Hong-Kong into the jurisdiction of a foreign country, from which, in the absence of any treaty of extradition, there was no power to return him.

In this view, therefore, all discussion with the colonial authorities at Hong-Kong looking to the rendition of fugitives from British justice who have taken refuge within your consular jurisdiction is inadmissible. The authorities of Hong-Kong seem to concur entirely in this opinion, as shown in their action, declining to make any demand for Jackson, although invited to do so.

Hong-Kong being British territory, the Department does not wish to be understood as holding the converse of the proposition, or as assuming that, in a proper case, the authorities of the United States could not demand the extradition of a fugitive from the justice of the United States who had there sought and found an asylum.

Apart from all questions of extradition, if Jackson was, as represented, a citizen of the United States, and had been arrested and claimed your protection, it was doubtless your duty to interfere in his behalf and to investigate his case. If he had been illegally arrested, it was proper that through your efforts he should be set at liberty. Such action would be proper in any case.

The objection to your proceedings in this case is not that you interfered in his behalf, but that you proposed to deliver him to the HongKong authorities under the extradition treaty, or by means of such proceedings, to be tried for an offense committed against Great Britain.

Such part of your correspondence with Mr. Williams as refers to ju risdiction over persons on board ships in the waters of China is not referred to, as having no necessary bearing in the questions here discussed. I am, &c.,

J. L. CADWALADER.

No. 175.

Mr. Cadwalader to Mr. Seward.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, No. 425.] Washington, Nov. 2, 1874. SIR: Your dispatch, No. 811, with its inclosures in reference to the arrest of General Le Gendre, late consul at Amoy, informing the Department of the proceedings taken, and of his final discharge from custody, has been received, and read, in connection with your 797 and Mr. Henderson's Nos. 42 and 44, with careful attention.

As the Department has had occasion in late dispatches, addressed to yourself and to the ministers of the United States in China and Japan, to refer to the questions arising out of the participation of citizens of the United States in the late expedition against the natives of Formosa, reference is had thereto for the general views therein expressed, confining the present dispatch to the particular case now presented.

The dispatches which have been received leave the Deparment without information upon several points; but from the facts now in its possession, the position of the case appears to be as follows About December, 1872, General Le Gendre entered the Japanese service, but the precise nature of his employment does not clearly appear. He was reported to have entered in some capacity connected with the foreign office, although it is stated by you that he has acted as a "military adviser." Having taken part in the organization of the expedition about to proceed to Formosa, he was detached through the efforts of Mr. Bingham, and the expedition departed without him. That he has taken any further part in it, directly or indirectly, does not appear, and he is reported as arriving in China, having gone from Yokohama to HongKong, thence to Swatow and Amoy. On his arrival at the latter place

instructions were asked by Mr. Henderson, who stated that he was presumed to be on his way to Formosa.

In answer to his request instructions were given by you to Mr. Henderson to arrest him, and he was arrested at Amoy upon the 6th of August. He thereupon filed a protest in the consular court, alleging, among other things, that the warrant on which he was held contained no mention of any offense, and insisting that his entry into the Japanese service was lawful and permitted by the treaty, and that his continuance therein was not in violation of any law of the United States. At his request he was forwarded to Shanghai, and on his arrival, pursuant to .the suggestion of Mr. Williams, and by your direction, was discharged from custody. These appear to be the facts as they have been communicated to the Department concerning the arrest.

Many considerations have been advanced by you, tending to show the animus of General Le Gendre toward the Chinese, and the object of his original employment and his visit to China, but all such are, at the most, argument or conjecture.

General Le Gendre was a citizen of the United States who had rendered patriotic and valuable services to his Government, who had lately held the very consulate in which he was arrested, and was represented to be attached to an important mission from the Mikado to the Emperor of China.

On all these grounds a criminal proceeding should not have been commenced against him without grave cause, and only for an offense to substantiate which ample evidence existed. In judging of the legal ity of this arrest, and of the propriety of his discharge from custody, it is necessary to know precisely the charges and the evidence at hand to support them. Upon these vital points the dispatches in possession of the Department give almost no information.

Exhibit No. 8, attached to your No. 811, being a form of warrant not filled out, and unsigned, is probably intended as a copy of the general form of the warrant on which the arrest was made.

It contains no charge of the commission of any particular offense, no statement of any facts based on which the warrant had been issued, and no mention of any complaint or information having been made. It is true that Mr. Henderson, in his letter of the 10th of August to the acting Japanese consul, states that "General Le Gendre was arrested by me in the United States consulate, upon a charge of advising, aiding, and abetting an expedition in hostility to the government of China, in violation of the laws of the United States and their treaty with China," and in his No. 10, to Mr. Williams, a copy of which was forwarded with his No. 42, to the Department, he states that he has arrested him for aiding the Japanese armed forces in the invasion of the island of Formosa, and these are the only approaches to any distinct statement of a charge.

The offense in each case here referred to is indefinite; no designation is made of the time or place when or where it is alleged to have been committed, and no allegation of the citizenship of the offender, or statement of the particular facts or legal provisions making the act an offense.

By the provisions of the act of 1860, as appears by sections 2 and 7, power is given to the consuls of the United States in China to arraign and try citizens of the United States charged with offenses against law which shall be committed in China, and such provisions are substantially the same in the Revision. (See §§ 4084, 4087.)

It is recognized in general as a part of the jurisprudence of this country, that offenses shall be tried where committed.

In conformity also with the established course of judicial proceedings in the United States, and, as is believed, with the regulations governing similar cases in China, to authorize the issue of a warrant it is necessary that the person against whom the warrant is issued should be charged with an act, or series of acts, making an offense known to the law. The accused also has a right to know, and should be informed of, this particular offense charged against him.

So far as the Department can therefore learn, none of these requisites were complied with in this case.

The consular officers of the United States appear to have acted, as perhaps is necessary, as both prosecutors and judges, but it does not. appear that any clearly-defined offense known to the law has been charged against General Le Gendre, or communicated to him or to the Department.

But, apart from the question that no particular offense seems to have been charged, it does not appear that any offense was charged as having been committed within the consular jurisdictions of Shanghai or Amoy, or of the empire of China, but precisely the opposite appears. The expedition in question was organized in Japan, sailed from Japan without General Le Gendre, and no further connection with it is shown on his part.

The offense in advising, aiding, or abetting the expedition or the invasion, therefore, if offense there was, was committed in a foreign country, outside of the jurisdiction of the consular courts of China.

Further reference to the merits of the case seems not to be required, and the Department refrains from discussing the question whether, in view of all the facts presented to the Department, General Le Gendre had committed any offense either in China or Japan, or whether he had violated the provisions of the act of 1860, or the neutrality act of the United States.

It may, however, safely be said that, in the light of the information forwarded to the Department, serious doubt exists on these questions. It seems proper further to say, that to have sent General Le Gendre to Japan for trial, as appears to have been proposed, because it was doubted whether a case could be made against him in China, would have been an act beyond the power of a consul of the United States.

A prisoner illegally arrested, or where no offense can be brought home to him, is entitled to his discharge.

He can be sent to another country to be tried only in compliance with treaty provisions for extradition. No such delivery could be made to any authority in Japan.

For all these reasons, and upon the facts as reported, the Department is forced to the conclusion that the arrest of General Le Gendre was without warrant of law, and cannot receive its approval. Had the arrest been the act of a foreign power, it is apprehended that it would have been the ground for energetic action on the part of the United States.

Referring to such parts of your dispatch as relate to the action of the Japanese, the nature of the expedition, and the connection of General Le Gendre with it, and which contain arguments to show his desire and intention to aid the Japanese iu hostility to China, it is not perceived that they present evidence of any criminal act on which to sustain au arrest and committal.

I am, &c.,

JOHN L. CADWALADER,
Acting Secretary.

No. 15.]

COLOMBIA.

No. 176.

Mr. Scruggs to Mr. Fish.

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Bogota, October 7, 1873. (Received November 4.) SIR: On the 28th of August ultimo, I transmitted to the secretary of foreign affairs the President's proclamation announcing the time and place of holding the centennial anniversary of American Independence and the international exhibition, as provided by late act of Congress. I also asked to be informed, at as early a period as might be convenient, whether it was the purpose of Colombia to create a commission to represent that government at the exhibition, tendering my services to any committee of citizens that might be appointed for that purpose, &c.

On the 13th of September following, the secretary of foreign affairs addressed me a note, saying that the President was very anxious that Colombia should be represented at the exhibition; that measures would be taken to bring the matter before the people, and that the subject would be laid before the Colombian congress, at its next session, with the recommendation that an act be passed creating a special commission, and that an appropriation be made for its proper execution. He also caused the proclamation of the President to be published in the official and other papers here, and in those of the other States of the confederation, thus bringing the matter prominently before the people of this country.

I am, &c.,

WILLIAM L. SCRUGGS.

No. 19.]

No. 177.

Mr. Scruggs to Mr. Fish.

[Extract.]

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Bogota, November 17, 1873. (Received December 18.) SIR: The State of Panama being so remote and inaccessible from this capital, and the mails so infrequent and irregular, that, up to this time, I have been wholly unable to advise the Department of the condition of affairs there, for the reason that it was impossible to obtain reliable information here.

My latest reliable intelligence from that locality is up to the 27th ultimo. At that time, the political troubles seemed to be over, at least for a season. General Correoso, the insurgent chief, had retreated to the interior, most of his followers having forsaken him, and the supposition was that he was then making his way to Costa Rica. The government of General Niere seemed firmly established, and the State legislature, then in session, had conferred upon him dictatorial powers. His acts have been arbitrary in the extrême; nor does he now hesitate to