2
which has stimulated the present revision. But we have also
taken account of the first portion of your letter of 30 March, in
which you explained the position of incomplete offences in the
law of extradition. I am sending copies of this letter and of
the drafts to MacLeod, as well as to Kowalski and Erskine.
The
The clause about the Colonies stands apart from the other
material in this batch. I am sorry to return to a provision
which we had all hoped was settled. But we remain uneasy.
best way to air our doubts seemed to be to send you a slightly
revised draft. There are no changes except in subsections (3)
and (4). They represent subsection (3) of the previous version,
which we last sent to you on 28 March. That attempted to take
account of comments contained in a letter of 8 March from
MacLeod, to which I replied on 9 March.
The difficulty which we now feel is that subsection (3) of the
draft of 9 March left matters (on the face of it) somewhat in the
air. It said that "the Governor may exercise the powers of the
Secretary of State". But a further reading of MacLeod's letter
of 8 March suggests that this is something that might not be
desired in certain cases. We are conscious that it may be felt
that a reference to Instructions on the face of the clause is
undesirable. But without it are there risks of a clash of
jurisdiction between a Governor and the Secretary of State?
Furthermore, though an extradition request may be made to the
Governor, is a request to the Secretary of State permissible as
:
an alternative?