1 Through the courtesy of the Honorable Joseph R. Baker, the extradition expert of the Department of State, it has been possible for the writer to ascertain the facts upon which this editorial is based.

2 The Legation at Athens reported that on Nov. 5 the Public Prosecutor asked for the provisional detention of the accused for sixty days, in harmony with the provisions of the treaty. This was granted. Owing, however, to a medical statement by police surgeons that the accused was suffering from arteriosclerosis and diabetes, the court ordered that the accused be transferred to a particular hospital where he was held under a police guard. It may be noted that counsel for the accused protested against his provisional detention on the ground that it was giving retroactive effect to the relevant provisions of the treaty.

3 To quote the language of the judges of the Court of Appeals of Athens of December 27, 1932, the accused was “charged with embezzlement, larceny, and larceny by bailee, that is, with acts provided in the treaty (Article 2, sections 11,15,18 and 21).“

4 “Whereas the Council of Judges of the Court of Appeals having considered carefully all the official documents presented, namely, the warrants for the arrest of the person sought, which were legally issued, the depositions of the witnesses, examined under oath, as well as all the other official documents and proofs, together with the arguments of the Public Prosecutor, the person sought and his attorneys, and likewise the supplementary depositions under oath of the witnesses Oliver McCormick and E. Davis, as well as the opinion of the ex-professor of Criminal Law in the University of Chicago, Floyd Thompson, who all fully deny the existence of any criminal intent in the acts of the person sought, and characterize his acts as a loan and as a usual commercial act, the purpose of which, indeed, was to prevent the sale of a great lot of securities deposited by Martin Insull with the brokers as security, and which sale if made would cause as a result a violent drop in the market, thus greatly reducing the value of the securities issued by the companies controlled by the person sought to their greater loss, and in addition thereto the fact that the amount of money for which the defendant is accused is so very little in comparison with the property owned by these companies, while he, on the other hand and during the long period of the life of these companies, one of which has been operating for twenty years and the other for four, did not obtain any profit from their property excepting only his regulated salary, as well as the fact that even the books of these companies do not show any indebtedness of the person sought, and furthermore the fact that the conduct of the person sought has been audited since by the officers authorized for said purpose by the constitutions of these companies; for all the above reasons this Council of the Court of Appeals is fully convinced that in this case there are no criminal acts provided in and punished by both the Greek and the American law; that is, acts of embezzlement, larceny, and larceny by bailee, for which the extradition is sought, but that they are, on the contrary, legal acts, forced by the circumstances, and, consequently the application for extradition must be rejected.“

5 Printed in Supplement to this Journal, p. 45.

6 127 U. S. 457, 462-463. In this case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar article embraced in the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico of Dec. 11, 1861.

7 Printed in this Journal, infra, pp. 362, 372.

8 Thus the court, after discussing the nature of the five offenses charged against the accused in the indictment, went on to say: “Lastly, under the first count, the accused being, together with others, an officer (Chairman of the Board of Directors and member of the Executive Committee) of the bankrupt corporation and well knowing the latter's insolvent condition, etc., handed over out of the corporation's assets and capital a sum of $558,120 to The Northern Trust Company of Chicago, which, acting on the accused's instructions, used this sum for the payment of a dividend to the holders of the company's preferred stock (amongst whom was the accused himself), which dividend was paid, not out of real earnings or surpluses of the company, but really out of its capital, the earnings and surpluses being fictitious and imaginary. “All the foregoing five counts constitute the offenses (according to the indictment) against the laws of the United States, and are punishable by imprisonment not exceeding five years, if committed by officers or agents of a person or corporation who, in contemplation of the corporation's bankruptcy or with intent to frustrate the operation of the bankruptcy law, shall conceal or transfer any assets of the corporation or person, whose officers or agents they are, ‘transfer’ being understood, under the official interpretation, to mean any alienation of the property or of its possession, whether absolute or conditional, and if attempted in any manner. “These acts constitute offenses under the Greek bankruptcy law, as well… . This payment of dividends manifestly non-existent at the expense of the share capital is in itself fraudulent and it is unnecessary to prove any other more specific definition of fraud.“

9 Department of State, Press Release, Nov. 5, 1933.

The communication contained the further statement: “Inasmuch as the Greek authorities have now seen fit on two occasions to deny the just requests of the United States made under the provisions of the above-mentioned treaty, it is apparent that this treaty, although similar in terms to treaties which the United States has found effective in extraditing fugitives from other countries, cannot be relied upon to effect the extradition of fugitives who have fled to Greece. My Government therefore considers that from the American point of view the treaty is entirely useless. Accordingly I am instructed to give formal notice herewith of my Government's denunciation of the treaty with a view to its termination at the earliest date possible under its pertinent provisions.“