Reference :-
DEC.O. 8
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC. COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
3
A difficult question arises as to the terms on which a lease may be renewed if the Governor considers it expedient to sell part of a section included in the lease under section two of the Ordinance of 1882. The Governor clearly cannot exact the rent of 201. for the residue of the section, and, in our opinion, the proportion of rent to be charged must be the proportion which the re-demised part of the section bears to the whole section as originally leased, and not the proportion which the area re-demised bears to 6,000 acres.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
5036.
MY LORD,
No. 6A.
(CANADA)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, February 29, 1892. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter of the 2nd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the accompanying papers respecting the extradition of a fugitive criminal, Leda Lamontagne, from the United States to Canada.
That the criminal in question was extradited by the United States upon a charge
of arson, and was arraigned in Canada upon that charge, but that before she was tried she was called as a witness against her brother, then on his trial for murder, and that upon her refusal to give evidence under those circumstances she was eventually sen- tenced by the Court to a year's imprisonment for contempt.
That a representation from the United States Government, alleging that Leda Lamontagne's extradition was sought rather for the purpose of obtaining her evidence on the occasion of the trial of her brother on a charge of murder than on the ground ostensibly put forward in the extradition demand, and that there had been an abuse of the Treaties and of the process of extradition, would be found at p. 1 of the printed correspondence.
That your Lordship requested Lord Knutsford to cause an immediate inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, and that copies of two Despatches from the Governor-General of Canada, enclosing Reports by the Committee of the Privy Council of Canada, were received in explanation. That these were printed as Enclosures in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 1st October 1891 (see p. 8 of print).
That the correspondence was sent to the Home Office on the 22nd October, with a request that your Lordship might be favoured with the opinion of Mr. Secretary Matthews upon the case; and that Sir Thomas Sanderson was to call our special atten- tion to the letter from the Home Office of the 6th November, and to the Memoranda by Mr. F. Lushington and Mr. Godfrey Lushington therein enclosed (vide pp. 23 and 27 of print), as well as to the various Minutes by the Superintendent of the Treaty Depart- ment of, and by the Legal Adviser to, the Foreign Office, which were to be found at pp. 13, 14, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 of the same document.
That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to request that we would be good enough to take the papers into our consideration, and to favour your Lordship with any observations which we might have to offer upon the case, which was in some respects novel, and raised points of extradition law and usage of considerable difficulty and importance,
That your Lordship, therefore, thought it might be found more convenient if you referred the whole matter to us for our general consideration, instead of requesting our opinion specially on any particular questions which might arise in connexion with the
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your ship's commands, have the honour to
Lord-
case.
Report-
That, in our opinion, the letter of the Home Office of the 6th November 1891, and the Memorandum by Mr. Godfrey Lushington enclosed therein, correctly state the law upon this matter.
"
It would probably be convenient to establish the rule suggested in Mr. Wharton's letter of the 11th July 1891, "that the fugitive is delivered up for the sole purpose of being tried for the offence for which he was surrendered, and that in regard to other matters occurring previously to his extradition, he is not to be regarded as being subject to the jurisdiction of the Government which obtains his surrender until he shall "have had an opportunity to leave it and return to the jurisdiction of the surrendering Government;" but it is not yet established, by any decision of the Supreme Court, that this rule represents the law of the United States, and, as Mr. Lushington points out. there have been conflicting decisions in the State Courts.
*
• 70451.-9. 23,-$192,