proposed that
warrant
syned ya
consuler officer shall alone be sufficient
suce
to commit him by the clause which make,
the magistrate
can show cause
Ove deleted.
ach the prisoner if he
against committal is
This proposal
unnecessay; that it is
but such
my
seems quite
of the A.G. argues not a matter of extradition,
420 no
investigation need
be made, lutsurdly evey.
modem state.
through whome a prisoner passes
& exenises
claim
to make sure
the right lawfully detained, and
that he is lawfell
if
the prisoner is not allowed to speak
seminity. The statute
there is no
it is state that the warant Drgned
a
consular officer is
ove
efficient evidence of lawful detection;
1
I dot see that
the procedure
receway;
S.
ད
5.
an
a
further implication
it now exist
? Sauction butine that the cannot affrove of sext 2(c) mus the refealed.
2(d) a that they
RAW 14/7
ts, and Still
in the com
Acors
M. Risley:
Having
бригати
un
Seen
4030
1914
89
interesting
thund
your
it is quite
trav
that this Ordinance would, if allowed to
Stand
pronsion
of the provision,
Thaits which is If restrictid at
This to a curtain.
Ichor of "forei
offenders but apples
cut arrang
the
most important
the
Phe
The 1872 Ordinance,
in fact, which justipes
Existence of that law.
I Therefore
conce
in
Mr. Wiseman's
to all to but the recommendation (not friding any
that
soft-quam is als
to wa
in the tranti
Affection
2
law to subsectionis (^) +(6) to sect. Ordinance); but, having regard The
the importance of discountenancing
prociples involved
1
of section 2
in
the
ما
subsections (c) (d)
dould suggest
? That the Garmor be directed
ama
lenderen
LH.M..
Que
to
mo
canor those subsections to be repeded,
that panding such repeal adnice bi The attorance of this Orshnance.
...vi
ham Cother
un fildes.
Dr.
15
Aic
7h
Hil My opt for contraher
ity