has sought asylum, or shall have been convicted thereof, his extradition may be deferred until such proceedings be determined, and, until he shall have been set at liberty in due course of law.

ARTICLE VII.

If a fugitive criminal claimed by one of the parties hereto, shall be also claimed by one or more powers pursuant to treaty provisions, on account of crimes committed within their jurisdiction, such criminal shall be delivered to the State whose demand is first received.

ARTICLE VIII.

Under the stipulations of this convention, neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects.

ARTICLE IX.

The expense of the arrest, detention, examination and transportation of the accused shall be paid by the Government which has preferred the demand for extradition.

ARTICLE X.

Everything found in the possession of the fugitive criminal at the time of his arrest, whether being the proceeds of the crime or offense, or which may be material as evidence in making proof of the crime, shall, so far as practicable, according to the laws of either of the contracting parties, be delivered up with his person at the time of the surrender. Nevertheless, the rights of a third party with regard to the articles aforesaid, shall be duly respected.

ARTICLE XI.

The stipulations of this convention shall be applicable to all territory wherever situated, belonging to either of the contracting parties or in the occupancy and under the control of either of them, during such Occupancy or control.

Requisitions for the surrender of fugitives from justice shall be made by the respective diplomatic agents of the contracting parties. In the event of the absence of such agents from the country or its seat of Government, or where extradition is sought from territory included in the preceding paragraph, other than the United States or the Dominican Republic, requisition may be made by superior consular officers.

It shall be competent for such diplomatic or superior consular officers to ask and obtain a mandate or preliminary warrant of arrest for the person whose surrender is sought, whereupon the judges and magistrates of the two Governments shall respectively have power and authority, upon complaint made under oath, to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person charged, in order that he or she may be brought before such judge or magistrate, that the evidence. of criminality may be heard and considered; and if, on such hearing, the evidence be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, it shall be the duty of the examining judge or magistrate to certify the same to

the proper executive authority, that a warrant may issue for the surrender of the fugitive.

If the fugitive criminal shall have been convicted of the crime for which his surrender is asked, a copy of the sentence of the court before which such conviction took place, duly authenticated, shall be produced. If, however, the fugitive is merely charged with crime, a duly authenticated copy of the warrant of arrest in the country where the crime was committed, and of the depositions upon which such warrant may have been issued, shall be produced with such other evidence or proof as may be deemed competent in the case.

ARTICLE XII.

If, when a person accused shall have been arrested in virtue of the mandate or preliminary warrant of arrest, issued by the competent authority as provided in Article XI hereof, and been brought, before a judge or magistrate to the end that the evidence of his or her guilt may be heard and examined as herein before provided, it shall appear that the mandate or preliminary warrant of arrest has been issued in pursuance of a request or declaration received by telegraph from the Government asking for the extradition, it shall be competent for the judge or magistrate at his discretion to hold the accused for a period not exceeding two months, so that the demanding Government may have opportunity to lay before such judge or magistrate legal evidence of the guilt of the accused, and if, at the expiration of said period of two months, such legal evidence shall not have been produced before such judge or magistrate, the person arrested shall be released, provided that the examination of the charges preferred against such accused person shall not be actually going on.

ARTICLE XIII.

In every case of a request made by either of the two contracting parties for the arrest, detention, or extradition of fugitive criminals, the legal officers or fiscal ministry of the country where the proceedings of extradition are had, shall assist the officers of the Government demanding the extradition before the respective judges and magistrates, by every legal means within their or its power; and no claim whatever for compensation for any of the services so rendered shall be made against the Government demanding the extradition, provided, however, that any officer or officers of the surrendering Government so giving assistance, who shall, in the usual course of their duty, receive no salary or compensation other than specific fees for services performed, shall be entitled to receive from the Government demanding the extradition the customary fees for the acts or services performed by them, in the same manner and to the same amount as though such acts or services had been performed in ordinary criminal proceedings under the laws of the country of which they are officers.

ARTICLE XIV.

This convention shall take effect from the day of the exchange of the ratifications thereof; but either contracting party may at any time terminate the same on giving to the other six months notice of its intention to do so.

The ratifications of the present treaty shall be exchanged at the city of Santo Domingo as soon as possible.

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles, and have hereunto affixed their seals.

Done, in duplicate, at the city of Santo Domingo, this nineteenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

[SEAL.] [SEAL.]

FENTON R. MCCREERY.
E. TEJERA BONETTI.

And whereas the said convention, as amended by the Senate of the United States, has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two governments were exchanged in the city of Santo Domingo, on the second day of August, one thousand nine hundred and ten;

Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM HOWARD Taft, President of the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof, as amended, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens thereof.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this twenty-sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and [SEAL.] ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-fifth.

By the President:

ALVEY A. ADEE,

Acting Secretary of State.

WM. H. TAFT.

SIR: I have the honor to inclose herewith copies, with translation, of the message of the President of Ecuador submitted to the extraordinary session of Congress, 1910. This document is important, being an analysis of the position of Ecuador in the present conflict with Peru.

I have, etc.,

WILLIAM C. Fox.

[Inclosure.-Translation.]

The message of the President of the Republic to the Extraordinary Congress of 1910.

HONORABLE LEGISLATORS: Permit me to welcome you and to assure you that your presence in this solemn moment will be fecund in benefits for the nation.

We find ourselves passing through a difficult situation, on account of the conflict which has arisen between our Republic and that of Peru.

As is well known, the secular dispute over the boundary line was submitted for decision to the King of Spain. We were expecting a just and proper sentence from the wisdom of such a distinguished judge, but when we mere most confident, a plan of the decision, uselessly disastrous to Ecuador, came to surprise us in a most painful manner. And in order that we should not remain in doubt as to the injustice which threatened us, Señor P. Caballero, then Spanish minister of state, said to our representatives in Madrid that the natural boundaries for the Ecuadorian nation were in the eastern range of the Andes, and that we should content ourselves with being the South American Switzerland. Minister Rendon could not support such offensive remarks with patience; he observed to Señor Caballero that nature had not placed the dividing line between the two nations on the slopes of Cotopaxi, but on the banks of the Amazon.

Honorable legislators, the fault was not with the Spanish council of state, whose members raised their voices against the injustice of that which was going to make us its victims; but the word of those wise and just jurists would have been drowned, without doubt, by the dexterity of the Republic of Peru, if the royal arbitrator, proceeding with the highest views and impartiality, attributes of such an upright monarch, and listening to the just claims of our Ministers Vazquez and Rendon, had not have suspended pronouncing the decision, thus leaving the parties at liberty to arrive at a direct settlement.

The notice of the very grave peril in which the national integrity was found brought up the views of Ecuador; and, urged by a most sincere desire to avoid the disturbance of peace on our continent, and in accord with the opinion of a committee of distinguished citizens, proposals were made to the Peruvian Government that we settle our differences by means of direct arrangements, consulting the sentiment of Americanism and fraternity which should reign between two neighboring States united by so many indestructible bonds.

The representatives of Ecuador and Peru in Washington jointly asked the Government of the United States of America that it should find a prudent and adequate means of finding an end of all possibility of a rupture between the two nations. The illustrious Government of the great Republic also suggested a direct arrangement

by means of commissioners, who would hold conferences in the city of Washington or in some other American capital. Ecuador hastened to nominate its representatives, but Peru not only did not do that, but affirmed that she had not solicited the mediation of North America. Later she stated that she would accept no other solution than the arbitral decision of Spain; in this way making every decorous and fair solution to the question difficult.

You will take note that the Government of Peru, in the refusal of our fraternal invitation to settle the boundary dispute justly, has forgotten the obligations imposed by the treaty of arbitration, which provides for the direct settlement in preference to the arbitral judgment. The Peruvian foreign office, in sustaining that the best means of finding a solution for our controversy is arbitration, has contradicted the wise foresight of the most famous statesmen of Peru, who saw in the treaty of 1887 an unavoidable cause of war between the two nations rather than a means of putting an end to the disagreement. It is, indeed, enough to read the confidential memorandum which the minister for foreign affairs, Dr. Alberto Elmore, presented to the Congress of 1891 to know that the most eminent statesmen of that country saw in the treaty of arbitration only the seeds of grave disagreements for the future-a species of mine which must produce an explosion and cause the ruin of the two countries.

Dr. Elmore said that the boundary question was one of life or death for Ecuador, since a radical solution against her would reduce her to the condition of Uruguayinsignificant for the present and exposed to the danger of being absorbed later on by her powerful neighbors; and that leaving Quito a few leagues from the Peruvian possessions, even though this solution was the result of an arbitral decision-it was evident that the country would rise up against the decision and there would be no Ecuadorian Government which could or would comply with it. The only possible solution of the boundary question between Ecuador and Peru which is radical and permanent, also said Dr. Arturo Garcia in his memorandum of August 9, 1890, was, has been, and will be the direct settlement. Thus all those who have had knowledge of the affair have believed, and thus will anyone who meditates upon the nature of the question also believe. Besides a friendly settlement, there are but two ways of settling the dispute-war and arbitration. But arbitration is also war, although this appears to be a paradox. Arbitration in the absolute form, unlimited in that which is agreed upon, and being a strict right, only permits radical solutions in the great dispute which is in question.

If the arbitrator has only to abide by the proved right of the parties, the decision could take away from us two populated provinces with some thousands of Peruvians and a vast territory south of the Maranon; or it could take our frontier not only into the center of Ecuador, but also into the north, establishing our boundary at a distance of two days from the capital. Would there be enough moral strength in the losing party, in one case or the other, to comply with a decision which would wound the most sacred interests and sentiments of the nation? Would the inhabitants of Tumbes and Jaen tranquilly submit to becoming Ecuadorians after having formed part of Peru for 70 years? Would Ecuador resign itself to be hemmed in between the mountains and the sea, renouncing all her hopes for the future?

Even Señor Bonifaz, Dr. Alzamora, and Dr. Pardo, ex-President of Peru and enthusiastic defender of the extreme aspirations of his country, have expressed themselves in more or less the same manner, so that, in the opinion of the above-mentioned Peruvian statesmen, to submit a question of our boundaries to an arbitrator would be to commit a grave error, for the reason that the arbitral decision would have to decide the very life of the contending States and that neither of them could submit to an unfavorable decision.

This wise foresight has come to its culmination, honorable legislators; for simply the notice that the project of the decision was against Ecuador has exasperated the minds of the people to such an extent that only the calmness and prudence of the Government, up to the present time, has been able to avoid greater explosions of wounded patriotism. Nevertheless, as you all know, lamentable incidents have arisen, which the public authorities have energetically condemned, and have even ordered that those suffering in such manifestations be indemnified.

The Government of Ecuador, in view of such disagreeable occurrences, has complied, to the fullest extent, with its duty, and has strictly fulfilled all the requirements of international law.

The royal arbitrator, taking into consideration the difficult situation of the two countries, and in view of the same treaty of arbitration, has resolved to defer the decision, in order that the contending Governments should arrive at a peaceful and friendly settlement. We have accepted such a prudent and just resolution; and I believe that, the question being put in this form, the only means to establish an equitable understanding is the direct arrangement.