FOCK
eTaelonki
.Y 4 0 0
.asive? olurno) mo İTEMÁ
„EIGI ‚ÈS Jonjwa „noxynoi!
elúrwonol ent
„ViajerosƐ Isinolo) sut
«groaznoli
.118
sint yo abeu moitiatupar auit of sonareten njiv fainolo) end nitroastyor + Tortevoð eit vonellsort sill nogu esitto afaesiv io soitibmtre and toi EIC.DTC ĐỊA, no themtevad Tý) sonetner a evrea oð abralel eni qiildī edt mi bejnew jodjob yď betoivmoɔ yilajel naad aad ed doin to noitoubda to emits ent eonebnoqaer700 Texto J bna,sbaaisi dɔwa ni Larudiat instaquo
+
of noijaler ni Jnemmrievoð Ísinolo) and bus soitto aidt neeWJOU 0980 BİNJ Lainolo) wit lo noltrajja and Ilao od wonod erit ovan I
apiloi et al noisiɔeb a yd hetneserq moitsutka siit of treau:to voð tol noiseoliqqa and doidw eroleć możźnoil ni twʊo e'ejsijaijai Jat iswineb und Joette ni noisiɔeb sidï .bisen asw noiJ IDEntra -BIJKO siit Juild ;emito noijiberare ma to beðɔivnʊd need nad oƒƒoƐ deitita erit bus noiremĂ În aadad? betinl and neowded y‡sent noiJib- agtanoaib eds to sausced Jada Jud ¡eseo edit od antiqqa Jnamnravo)
quoiverq a ni moynol to Jtwo) suerqu2 and yo zanosing end to ajooibujhe Met Bi Tajjam odt agnibosoonq auqioƆ asedat no gaireeri -noring end tɔa suy100 83eded nektira eit tebou stotcredt daud bro .beradoeth ad Jæum 10-
-97 9ðantsijal ooiioi euit to moiaiseb sidt elidy
ne tenkt aawloeb di tad ni soitto sint 1o aweiv and adnabsiq -ted asil moke ihszire dark, bra bedti 100 meau and euro noijibau̸rs
Beɖg noisiɔab mið abus (el aniqqilid¶ edt bas ynoloƆ sirid neew- Jqeous Jonnao soitto siad nolaw enoisseup noqu Besaaq bus tendint noqu saaq of duetequos si drvoo s'etenjukam solloq a tand down as edit slide jant nied Jluse7 and y‡ifanit to seteb yns driw hog wal end of doenen ni betroqque era moro sut to anoidnetnoo erit ovinyeb of vino don yaw a ni boouter si noitibantxe ydeard and
308
requisitioning government of the fugitive from justice it seeka but also, if such Magistrate's decision is upheld, to deprive it of any
remedy under British law for the correction of such miscarriage of
justice. This office, as representing the requisitioning govern-
-ment, has never desired anything further than a proper presenta-
-tion of this case on its merits but it can hardly be satisfied
with less. That we are denied extradition in spite of the fact that
an extradition crime has been committed and the fugitive from justice is found in British territory seems to indicate that the case has not been properly presented or that the case has not been properly decided upon its merits.
Further proceedings in behalf of the requisitioning government in this matter have been occasion for careful investiga- -tion on the part of counsel in consultation with law officers of the crown. While some differences as to views of ertradition in general exist there seems to be a general agreement as to certain proposed or possible forms of procedure which may serve the pur- -pose of getting this case before a proper tribunal and getting be- -fore such tribunal such authorities as will correct what this
office believes to be the mistaken view of the magistrate of the police court as to the applicability of the habeas corpus act to such a case as that of Sotto. The American view of extradition is that it is an executive act and the function of a court in extradi- -tion proceedings is merely the subsidiary one of passing upon the question of whether or not a given case comes within the provisions of a treaty and whether proper legal formalities have been met. The British view of extradition apparently is that it is a criminal proceedings governed largely by local laws which must run parallel with extradition treaties to give the latter effect in British possessions. Assuming the latter to be the case it is quite evident that further negotiations between the executive authorities of the respective governments will in the end merely bring the case back
again to the courts.
Assuming that further proceedings, for the present in any event, must be in the courts of the Colony, this office has