The Imprisonment of Dr. Cornelius Herz. Extradition treaties with France and other countries might be usefully amended by the inclusion as already suggested of a provis ion that the demand for surrender should be withdrawn on proof, satisfactory to the British government, that the prisoner is dan gerously ill. The second question, — What is to be done for the relief of Dr. Cornelius Herz?— is one more of administration than of law. There is now no time for general legislation which would meet the concrete case. The only possibility of prompt action lies in the reserve powers of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. On the ground that polit ical motive is apparent throughout the pro ceedings, the Secretary can arrest the whole process of extradition. Here he will be within his strict right, as defined by the law of England as well as the law of nations. On the other hand, he is entitled, under the ordinary usage of diplomatic intercourse — herein, of course, the law of England is silent — to represent to the French Govern ment the grave inconvenience attaching to the present position in which the Govern ment of a free country — the home of con stitutional liberty, is placed. That is, that the British Government is reduced to retain ing for an indefinite period in prison a sick man who cannot be tried, and who, as un tried, is presumably innocent. Diplomatic remonstrance was recommend ed to the late Government by a former So licitor-General. But should remonstrance be unavailing — and even a published request of a British ministry might not excuse or palliate in the eyes of the intelligent French elector the withdrawal of a charge against a "Panamaist" — then it will remain to be con sidered what proofs there are of political motive in the institution, or the continuance of the prosecution of Dr. Herz. Is it really necessary to recite proof of a self-evident fact? It is notorious that the Panama Canal scheme, itself originating quite as much in political as financial mo
499
tives, has been in its fall as well as its rise iden tified with political and vote-seeking pro jects. The downfall of ministers — though, to be sure, that in France does not seem to require a cataclysm — the political death of party leaders, the fortunes of political journalists, all centred for years around the last dream of Ferdinand de Lesseps. It is of common knowledge that accusations of complicity with " Les Chcquards " were made, and often untruly made, for political purposes. Common sense alone is sufficient to show that the persons truly or falsely supposed to be responsible for the loss of the untold millions taken from the pockets of a million French electors, and for the perhaps equally bitter loss of the glorious mirage of the profits of Panama, have to fear the votes of the elector as well as the process of the Ministry of Justice. Again, to come to the question from a different standpoint, what can be the motive of the French demand for the surrender of this last of the accused? The vindication of Justice? But then we have the fact that the other defendants, of whom the accused was alleged to be an accomplice, were re leased two years ago, by the order of the highest tribunal in France. A nervous anxiety to display to the elec tor the utmost conceivable vigor in prose cuting an accused Panamaist is visible not merely in persisting in the demand for the extradition of the accused Dr. Herz, but in the conduct of the prosecution in the French courts. The accused, kept in his bed by illness, is prosecuted in his absence. A cer tificate of that illness and of its serious na ture, from English physicians of the highest standing, is summarily set aside. The sever est possible penalty is demanded by the prosecution and is inflicted by the court. A British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may very well admit the universally admitted, and put an end to this political persecution of a man who cannot be tried, but who can be and is imprisoned. By ex-
