UNITED STATES.
:
Atradition of C. E, Miller, United States Hitizen, from
Stras
Settlements
fr embezzle
ent in Japan,
No. 44.
The Law Officers of the Crown to the Earl of Rosebery.-(Received March 2.)
My Lord,
Royal Courts of Justice, March 1, 1893. WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter of the 7th January, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a letter and inclosures from the Colonial Office respecting an application made to the Governor of the Straits Settlements by the Acting United States' Consul at Singapore for the extradition of one C. E. Miller, a citizen of the United States, who, being accused of embezzlement in Japan, had escaped from the extra-territorial jurisdiction possessed by the United States' Consul in that country, and had taken refuge in the Straits Settlements.
That the extradition of Miller was refused in consequence of an informality in the warrant issued at Hiogo, and that the fugitive had been set at liberty; but that the Governor of the Straits Settlements had inquired whether the United States' Government had, under any circumstances, the right to claim from that Colony the extradition to the United States' authorities in Japan of a fugitive American citizen accused of an extradition offence within the meaning of the "Ashburton" Treaty of the 9th August, 1842, between Her Majesty and the United States of America, and the Extradition Convention supplementary to Article X of that Treaty, which was signed at Washington on the 12th July, 1889.
That before, however, furnishing him with instructions in the matter, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had asked whether there was any record in the Foreign Office of a previous case where extradition was demanded from any part of Her Majesty's dominions in respect of a crime committed in Japan, or in some other country in which the demanding Power possessed extra-territorial jurisdiction.
That no record of a similar case could be traced in the archives of the Foreign Office; and that since a question of principle of considerable importance was involved, Sir Thomas Sanderson was to submit to us the following observations, and to ask us to be good enough to favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the matter.
That Article X of the Treaty with the United States of the 9th August, 1842 (the Article relating to extradition), and the Act of Parliament giving effect to it, both referred to crimes committed "within the jurisdiction of the United States ;" and that a similar expression was used in the other Extradition Treaties concluded prior to 1870 between this country and foreign States. That it was not specifically stated whether that term included extra-territorial jurisdiction; but that the inference would appear to be that it did not, since section 3 of the Act of Parliament (6 and 7 Vict., cap. 76) empowered a Secretary of State to deliver up an accused person to such person or persons as should be authorized to receive him, in order to convey him to the territories of the United States to be tried, &c.
That the Act of Parliament (6 and 7 Vict., cap. 75) for carrying out the Treaty with France of the 13th February, 1843 (now expired), also spoke of the conveyance of the accused person to the dominions of the King of the French.
363
>