copy of the record of conviction and sentence of the court is ordinarily sufficient. If the fugitive has not been convicted, but is merely charged with crime, a duly authenticated copy of the indictment or information, if any, and of the warrant of arrest and return thereto. accompanied by a copy of the evidence upon which the indictment was found, or the warrant of arrest issued, or by original depositions setting forth as fully as possible the circumstances of the crime, are usually necessary. Many of our treaties require the production of a duly authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest in this country; but an indictment, information, or warrant of arrest alone, without the accompanying proofs, is not ordinarily sufficient. It is desirable to make out as strong a case as possible, in order to meet the contingencies of the local requirements at the place of arrest. If the extradition of the fugitive is sought for several offenses. copies of the several convictions, indictments, or informations and of the documents in support of each should be furnished. Application for the extradition of a fugitive should state his full name, if known, and his alias, if any, the offense or offenses in the language of the treaty upon which his extradition is desired, and the full name of the person proposed for designation by the President to receive and convey the prisoner to the United States. As the application proper is desired solely by the Department as a basis for its action, and is retained by it, it is not necessary that it should be attached to the evidence. Copies of the record of conviction, or of the indictment, or information, and of the warrant of arrest, and the other papers and documents going to make up the evidence are required by the Department, in the first instance, as a basis for requesting the surrender of the fugitive, but chiefly in order that they may be duly authenticated under the seal of the Department, so as to make them receivable as evidence where the fugitive is arrested upon the question of his surrender. Copies of all papers going to make up the evidence, transmitted as herein required, including the record of conviction, or the indictment, or information, and the warrant of arrest, must be duly certified and then authenticated under the great seal of the State making the application or the seal of the Department of Justice, as the case may be; and this Department will authenticate the seal of the State or of the Department of Justice. For example, if a deposition is made before a justice of the peace, the official character of the justice and his authority to administer oaths should be attested by the county clerk or other superior certifying officer; the certificate of the county clerk should be authenticated by the governor or secretary of state under the seal of the State, and the latter will be authenticated by this Department. If there is but one authentication, it should plainly cover all the papers attached. All of the papers herein required in the way of evidence must be transmitted in duplicate, one copy to be retained in the files of the Department, and the other, duly authenticated by the Secretary of State, will be returned with the President's warrant, for the use of the agent who may be designated to receive the fugitive. As the governor of the State, or the Department of Justice, also ordinarily requires a copy, prosecuting attorneys should have all papers made in triplicate. By the practice of some of the countries with which the United States has treaties, in order to entitle copies of depositions to be received in evidence the party producing them is required to declare under oath that they are true copies of the original depositions. It is desirable, therefore, that such agent, either from a comparison of the copies with the originals or from having been present at the attestations of the copies, should be prepared to make such declaration. When the original depositions are forwarded, such declaration is not required. Applications by telegraph or letter are frequently made to this Department for its intervention to obtain the provisional arrest and detention of fugitives in foreign countries in advance of the presentation of the formal proofs upon which a demand for their extradition may be based. Such applications should state specifically the name of the fugitive, the offense with which he is charged, the circumstances of the crime as fully as possible, and a description and identification of the accused. It is always helpful to show that an indictment has been found or a warrant of arrest has been issued for the apprehension of the accused. In Great Britain the practice makes it essential that it shall appear that a warrant of arrest has been issued in this country.* *For fuller information with respect to procedure in cases of provisional arrest within British jurisdiction, see Department's memorandum of May, Care should be taken to observe the provisions of the particular treaty under which extradition is sought, and to comply with any special provisions contained therein. The extradition treaties of the United States may be found in the several volumes of the Statutes at Large, in the "Revised Statutes of the United States relating to the District of Columbia and Post Roads, together with Public Treaties in force on the 1st day of December, 1873," and in the volume of Public Treaties, 1887. Copies of particular treaties will be furnished by the Department upon application. If the offense charged be a violation of a law of a State or Territory, the agent authorized by the President to receive the fugitive will be required to deliver him to the authorities of such State or Territory. If the offense charged be a violation of a law of the United States, the agent will be required to deliver the fugitive to the proper authorities of the United States for the judicial district having jurisdiction of the offense. Where the requisition is made for an offense against the laws of a State or Territory, the expenses attending the apprehension and delivery of the fugitive must be borne by such State or Territory. Expenses of extradition are defrayed by the United States only when the offense is against its own laws. A strict compliance with these requirements may save much delay and expense to the party seeking the extradition of a fugitive criminal. Department of State, Washington, March 26, 1900. His Excellency The Governor of Sir: The extradition from Mexico of fugitives from the justice of the United States has been the subject of more or less misunderstanding between the two Governments; and the recent failure of the Mexican Government to surrender, at the request of the governor of Texas, Leonardo Gonzales, accused of murder in that State, gave occasion for the careful study and consideration of the question between the Mexican Ambassador and the Department of State. It appears that the failure to grant the extradition requested in some cases—and especially in the Gonzales case-was due, not to any motive of the Mexican Government to refuse the request on the ground of the Mexican citizenship of the accused, but because the demanding authorities had not sufficiently complied with section 1 of Article III of the treaty. The proceedings in the Gonzales case may be taken as illustrative of alleged defects in the observance of necessary formalities, and for that reason a memorandum of the case is enclosed herewith, marked A. With a view to arriving at a more distinct understanding of the requirements and formalities which, under the treaty, are required of the United States authorities in such cases, and the observance of which will facilitate the extradition of accused persons, the Department addressed a note, under date of January 12 ultimo, to the Mexican Ambassador (copy enclosed, marked B), inviting a conference on the subject. At the conference the Ambassador explained the laws of the Mexican Republic bearing on the question, and stated that the laws of its several States are substantially the same as those of the Mexican Federal Government. He afterwards furnished the Department a memorandum of the conference (copy enclosed, marked C), and also a copy in Spanish and English of the said provisions of the Mexican code (copy enclosed, marked D). The observance of the precepts of the said laws on the part of the demanding authorities will, it is believed, lead to satisfactory results in the future. It may be further observed that within the experience of the Department, the corresponding requirements of our laws on the Mexican Government in such cases have been by it scrupulously pursued in those cases where extradition has been sought by it through the diplomatic channels. I also enclose printed leaflet copy of the extradition treaty in force between the two Governments. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, JOHN HAY. Enclosures: Memorandum on Gonzales case. To Mexican Ambassador, No. 64, January 12, 1900. Copy of certain articles of Mexican code. Extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. A Memorandum on the Gonzales case. It appears from Mr. Clayton's Despatch No. 415, November 22 último, and in Governor Sayers' letter of November 28 ultimo, with their enclosures, that the request for the extradition of Leonardo Gonzales was based upon the affidavit charging him with the crime of murder of Prisciliana Laura, and upon a deposition of H. C. Crosby. It appears that extradition was refused by the Mexican Government on the ground that the demand was founded upon the warrant issued by the clerk of Pecos County and on said deposition, and that there was no evidence submitted to show legally the existence of the corpus delicti of homicide; that no evidence of the dead body was given by competent authority, nor that an authoritative examination was made of the wounds inflicted upon Prisciliana Laura, nor that an autopsy was held upon the dead body to prove the cause of death, indispensable requisites for the imposition of punishment according to articles 544, 545, and 546 of the Mexican penal code; and that the deposition of said Crosby failed to state expressly the place or town of Pecos County where the homicide was committed, and was wanting in other circumstances to raise the presumption of guilt against Gonzales. A further ground of refusal was the want of sufficient authentication of the extradition proceedings had in Texas as required by Article VIII and IX of the treaty and because the Mexican authorities were not competent to take jurisdiction of the case for lack of certain requisites enumerated in article 186 of the penal code in force in Coahuila and in the Federal District; that under the treaty, extradition cannot be granted where the proof of crime presented by the requesting party would not justify the apprehension and the putting on trial of the accused if the crime had been there committed. No. 64.] B The Secretary of State to the Mexican Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, January 12, 1900. Excellency Referring to your memorandum in relation to the provisional detention in the United States, under the extradition |