Charles Evans Hughes

“ Obviously the treaty contains no express grant of the power now invoked. Petitioners point to article 1, which states that the two governments 'mutually agree to deliver up persons' who are charged with any of the specified offenses. Petitioners urge that the word 'persons' includes citizens of the asylum state as well as all others. But article 1 is the agreement to deliver. It imposes the obligation of that agreement. Article 1 does not purport to grant any power to surrender save as the power is related to and derived from that obligation. ”

“ Fish, instructed the American Ambassador that although the surrender could not be demanded as of right and would not be asked as a favor, or even accepted with an understanding that it would be reciprocated, the circumstances might be made known to the Mexican government with a view to ascertain whether it would voluntarily surrender the fugitive. The Mexican government declined the surrender. ”

“ Against these considerations, the inference sought to be drawn from the French 'expose des motifs' accompanying the treaty, and more particularly from the 'expose ' accompanying the Franco-British treaty of 1908, is of slight weight. [17]
Petitioners strongly rely upon the decision in England in In re Galwey (1896) , 1 Q.B.D. 230; compare Reg. v. Wilson, 3 Q.B.D. 42 (1877) . But, as the Circuit Court of Appeals points out, the Anglo-Belgian treaty there under consideration had its own history and background-quite different from that which we have here-upon which the case turned. ”

“ Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 437, 22 S.Ct. 195, 46 L.Ed. 264; Jordan v. Tashiro, 278 U.S. 123, 127, 49 S.Ct. 47, 48, 73 L.Ed. 214; Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 293, 294, 54 S.Ct. 191, 195, 196, 78 L.Ed. 315. ”