2
upon the proposed negotiation the draft prepared by Sir Henry Bergne might serve as a basis,
I venture to add the following observations --
In Articles I and V it would be useful to insert in their proper place the words, "or within the jurisdiction," the addition of which to the "Draft Rendition Agreement" was proposed by the Japanese Foreign Office to cover cases of offences committed by subjects of each State in the dominions of a third Power where extra-territorial jurisdiction had been conceded by Treaty.
2. Is it necessary to make the non-surrender of nationals absolute? Would not a stipulation that neither Power should be bound to surrender its own subjects be sufficient for the purpose while the present Treaty remains in force. This might be framed in some such form as Article VII of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Japan of 1886. ("State Papers," Vol. 77.)
3. The IVth Article the late Mr. Fraser and Mr. Gubbins considered to be essential. But if it is adhered to we may find ourselves in the position of having to ask the Chinese Government to consent to the extradition from Japan to Hong Kong of a Chinese fugitive offender, which would, to say the least of it, be inconvenient.
As regards paragraph 2 perhaps it might be so worded as to admit the surrender of British subjects to any third State which had made a similar agreement with Japan in respect of its own subjects, and as to other States reserving the consent of Great Britain to the surrender. The United States, in the face of its own Treaty, could not claim the right of refusing to allow Japan to extradite a United States' citizen to Great Britain, while Powers which maintained their right to be consulted beforehand could not complain if as regards themselves a similar reservation were made by us. The clause might possibly be framed in the following manner :-
Japan undertakes not to surrender a British subject to a third Power unless that Power acquiesces in the surrender of its own subjects by Japan to a third Power.
I have, &c. (Signed)
M. le Ministre,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess Saionji,
ERNEST SATOW.
Tokió, November 26, 1895.
AS telegraphic application has been made to me by the Colonial Secretary of Singapore to obtain the arrest of an individual named Kam Quen Sean, who has absconded from that Colony, being charged with the embezzlement of 100,000 dollars belonging to his employers, the Netherlands Trading Society, and is supposed to have fled to this country, I am disposed to think that it would be found convenient if the precedent set in two cases that occurred respectively in 1889 and 1891 were followed in this instance.
On those occasions it was arranged that the Japanese police authorities should effect the arrest of the fugitive, and hold him in custody until the arrival of the warrant of arrest should enable him to be handed over to the British police. That course was taken in accordance with the wishes of your Excellency's Government, and my predecessor's proceedings in connection therewith were approved by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
In the present case, accordingly, I have the honour to ask whether the Government of the Emperor will be disposed to give orders for the arrest of the individual above mentioned, supposing him to have reached this country, and his detention in custody pending the arrival of a warrant, and the completion of arrangements for his transport back to the Colony of Singapore.
As the matter is one of urgency, and believing that there are grounds for anticipating a favourable reply, I have the honour further to add below the description of Kam Quen Sean.
I take, &c.
(Signed)
ERNEST SATOW.
3
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
The Marquess Saïonji to Sir E. Satow.
(Translation.) Sir,
Tokió, November 29, 1895.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your note of the 26th instant, in which your Excellency states that you have received a telegram from the Colonial Secretary of Singapore requesting you to obtain the arrest of an individual named Kam Quen Sean, who is supposed to have stolen 100,000 dollars belonging to the Netherlands Trading Society at Singapore, and to have fled to this country; and you, accordingly, inquire whether, in this instance also, the imperial Government will issue instructions for his arrest in accordance with the precedents for the rendition of criminals set in two instances which occurred in 1889 and 1891, in order that he may be handed over to the officials carrying the warrant for his arrest who will be dispatched from Singapore.
Having taken the circumstances of the case into consideration, the Imperial Government have issued the necessary instructions for the arrest of the individual in question, and, as in the event of his arrest, he will be detained and held for extradition in accordance with the procedure adopted in previous cases, I have the honour to request that your Excellency will give me further detailed information as to the date on which, and the place at which, he will arrive, and the name of the ship on which he is a passenger.
The measures taken by the Imperial Government in this instance are, in view of the absence at present of any Convention for the extradition of criminals between our two countries outside the scope of the provisions of the Regulations for the rendition of fugitive offenders, and, therefore, must be regarded as an Act of State.
The Imperial Government are, accordingly, not desirous that the present case should be considered as a precedent in the future.
I take, &c.
Sir,
(Signed)
No. 2.
Foreign Office to Home Office.
SAÏONJI KIMMOCHI.
Foreign Office, January 20, 1896.
I AM directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to transmit to you, to be laid before Secretary Sir Matthew Ridley, the accompanying copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Minister at Tokio, inclosing a copy of correspondence with the Japanese Government, respecting the surrender of a fugitive criminal from Japan to Singapore, and suggesting that formal negotiations should be reopened with the Japanese Government for the conclusion of an Extradition Treaty between Great Britain and Japan.*
The question of extradition between Great Britain and Japan was very fully considered in 1892 and 1893; and I am to transmit to you, for Sir Matthew Ridley's information, the accompanying printed correspondence on the subject. It will be seen that the Legal Adviser to this Department expressed an opinion unfavourable to the principle of concluding Extradition Treaties with countries in which Her Majesty exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction; and that, after some discussion, the proposed negotiation with Japan was abandoned, on the ground that it would be inexpedient to proceed in the matter while the question of Treaty revision was in suspense. That question is now settled by the conclusion of the Treaty between Great Britain and Japan of the 16th July, 1894, but British Consular jurisdiction in Japan will not be terminated until the expiration of at least five years from that date.
Lord Salisbury is disposed to think that the question might now be reopened by Her Majesty's Minister at Tôkiô; but, before issuing instructions to Sir E. Satow in that sense, his Lordship would be glad to be favoured with any observations which Sir Matthew Ridley may have to make on the subject.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
FRANCIS BERTIE,
Kam Quen Sean.
Age 35, thin, height 5 feet 7 inches. Sallow complexion, long face.
• No. 1.
† Confidential Paper No. 6417.
328