Chargé d'Affaires. Placed in this position there was nothing for Ferdinand to do but knuckle under. France was given satisfaction and the incident was considered closed. However, it showed both the attitude of the Bulgarian Government, and the possible use that could be made of the Capitulations, both as a threat or as a barter, for the Bulgarians were ready to exchange anything against their removal at that time.

Beginning with 1892 Bulgaria began, by treaty and agreement, to ameliorate her position. Almost invariably such steps in advance as she consummated were solely on the judicial side, and dealt mostly with civil law. Italy, Germany and Austria all withdrew the necessity of the presence of a consular representative in case of civil action. Curiously enough, Great Britain which had plead[ed] the cause of Bulgaria at Berlin never acquiesced to this modification. By degrees practically all cases to be tried before a civil court were allowed to pass without challenge by the Capitulary nations. Certain agreements were entered into to protect nationals undergoing bankruptcy or similar commercial misadventures in Bulgaria.

By degrees Bulgaria came to believe herself free from the onus of the Capitulations and as they were not invoked, as far as I can discover, from 1908, when she became a sovereign state, and [to] the end of the war she, possibly, had every reason to think that they were considered non-existent.

However, Article 175 of the Treaty of Neuilly clearly stipulates that the Capitulary rights are to be considered as still in existence. In 1924 and again in 1925 Great Britain, France and Italy acting in consort [concert?] brought up the question of the extraterritoriality of their consuls based on the Capitulations. I must state, that from conversation with the representatives of these powers, I am inclined to believe that the representations made were rather to obtain preferential commercial agreements as against relinquishment of the rights enjoyed, and if the point could be definitely forced home it was a point definitely gained.

After the explosion in the Cathedral on April 16th, 1925, the situation respecting the capitulations became a trifle more involved. Léger, a Frenchman, and his wife were arrested for complicity in the affair. They had rented rooms to some of the conspirators and I believe personally that Léger knew that he was without the law. At all hazards [sic], the fact remains that, they were tried by a military tribunal and both were found guilty. Léger was condemned to death and his wife to life-imprisonment.

The French Chargé did not hear till several days after his arrest that Léger was in prison. He contented himself at that time with furnishing the man with counsel and seeing that Madame Léger receive[d] some sort of preferential treatment from the prison au

thorities. However, after the two were sentenced, the French Minister who had newly arrived received instructions to request clemency of the King for Léger. The French Minister tells me that in making the request he pointed out that in other countries the crime of which the condemned was accused was not punishable by death, and that should the Government persist in its attitude it might be necessary to invoke the Capitulations. He found a ready listener in the King, who at all times is against capital punishment, and the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment; which was satisfactory to all concerned.

Inasmuch as the trial had caused a certain amount of comment, seeing that it comprised [sic] foreigners, the British Legation requested what its attitude should be under similar circumstances of the Home authorities. The reply was to the effect that in all cases of a criminal nature as soon as the Legation learned of the arrest all possible facilities should be arranged for the detained person. It is to be understood that this refers primarily to political crime. Later, as the case developed would be time enough to determine on a definite line of action.

The attitude of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs is that the Capitulations no longer exist. They state that since the Capitulations have been abolished in Turkey they can no longer be invoked in Bulgaria, as they were merely a relic of Ottoman rule. When faced with Article 175 of the Treaty of Neuilly, to which the British Minister once called their attention, they assume a calmer attitude. There is no doubt that their existence is a thorn in the flesh, and that present Bulgaria would do much to remove them.

At this moment the attitude of the three Great Powers holding capitulary rights under the terms of the Treaty of Neuilly is about as follows:

Great Britain has withdrawn rights in Civil cases, but have made definite statements concerning their rights in Criminal cases. Will use Capitulations as a lever to obtain preferences in proposed Commercial Treaty.

France has adopted a similar attitude, perhaps a trifle more conciliatory, but have made it clear that Capitulations certainly exist in Criminal cases. It is to be noted that all Roman Catholics in Bulgaria are supposedly under the protection of the French. This dates from the time of Francis the First, and it appears unlikely that it would be invoked.

Italy joined Britain and France concerning the Consular question pointed out in the foregoing. Their Chargé (Italy's) tells me that he does not believe that his country would invoke the Capitulations except in a flagrant miscarriage of justice in a criminal case. I believe, inasmuch as Italy is bending every effort toward capturing

the trade of Bulgaria, that she prefers to use the Capitulations to gain some end and that eventually she will barter them away against some Treaty or Agreement.

At the present moment American citizens in Bulgaria receive the same treatment as that accorded to the nationals of other countries. Moreover, such Americans as reside in this country are unlikely to run afoul of the law in criminal matters. Their litigation, such as it is, would come before a civil court.

There is one side of the question that must be considered attentively. In a country as prone to political disturbance as Bulgaria it would appear unwise to renounce capitulary rights in cases involving political crime. Even though the Government at Washington might not desire to institute a Consular Court to examine a case, nevertheless as shown in the case of Léger, the remindance [sic] of the existence of the Capitulations might have a salutary effect. It would appear to be the best policy to hold the capitulary rights of the United States in reserve against either the possible defense of a national or to use for some commercial preference.

I have [etc.]

PHILANDER L. CABLE

CANADA

EXTRADITION CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA APPLYING TO OFFENSES AGAINST LAWS FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS1

Treaty Series No. 719

Convention Between the United States of America and Great Britain in Respect of the Dominion of Canada, Signed at Washington, January 8, 1925 2

The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, in respect of the Dominion of Canada, being desirous of enlarging the list of crimes on account of which extradition may be granted with regard to certain offences committed in the United States or in the Dominion of Canada under the Conventions concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 12th July, 1889,3 and the 13th December, 1900, and the 12th April, 1905,5 and the 15th May, 1922, with a view to the better administration of justice and the prevention of crime, have resolved to conclude a Supplementary Convention for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit: The President of the United States of America: Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States of America, and His Britannic Majesty: The Honorable Ernest Lapointe, Minister of Justice to the Dominion of Canada;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Articles:

ARTICLE I

The following crimes are, subject to the provision contained in Article II, hereof, added to the list of crimes numbered 1 to 10 in

1

This convention resulted from a draft extradition treaty submitted by the representatives of the United States to their Canadian colleagues at the Ottawa Conference of 1923; Foreign Relations, 1923, vol. 1, pp. 228 ff.

'Ratification advised by the Senate, Jan. 27, 1925; ratified by the President, Mar. 2, 1925; ratified by Great Britain in respect of Canada, May 7, 1925; ratifications exchanged at Washington, July 17, 1925; proclaimed by the President, July 17, 1925.

Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. 1, p. 740.

the 1st Article of the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889, and to the list of crimes numbered 11 to 13 in Article I of the Supplementary Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 13th December, 1900, and to the list of crimes numbered 14 and 15 in Article I of the Supplementary Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 12th April, 1905, and to the list of crimes numbered 16 in Article I of the Supplementary Convention concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 15th May, 1922, that is to say:

17. Crimes and offences against the laws for the suppression of the traffic in narcotics.

ARTICLE II

The operation of the present Convention is confined to cases in which the offences mentioned in the preceding Article having been committed in the United States or in the Dominion of Canada, the person charged with the offence is found in the Dominion of Canada or in the United States respectively.

ARTICLE III

The present Convention shall be considered as an integral part of the said Extradition Conventions of the 12th July, 1889, and the 13th December, 1900, and the 12th April, 1905, and the 15th May, 1922, and the 1st Article of the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889, shall be read as if the lists of crimes therein contained had originally comprised the additional crimes specified and numbered 17 in the 1st Article of the present Convention subject to the provision contained in Article II.

The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at Washington or Ottawa as soon as possible.

It shall come into force ten days after its publication in conformity with the laws of the High Contracting Parties, and it shall continue and terminate in the same manner as the said Convention of the 12th July, 1889.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present Supplementary Convention and have affixed their seals thereto.

DONE in duplicate at the City of Washington this eighth day of January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five.