·
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Extradition Acts are in force would be in legal custody while temporarily detained in England for the purpose of extradition under a warrant issued in pursuance of Section 17 of the Act of 1870, and if escaping could be recaptured in the same way as a person arrested for an offence committed in England. The Secretary of State, however, thinks it right to point out that some doubt appears to have been felt in Cape Colony, where the Extradition Act, 1870, is in force, as to the power to detain a fugitive offender in transit under a warrant granted elsewhere, since a Colonial Act (No. 6 of 1895), of which a copy is enclosed, has been passed for the purpose of dealing with the case of persons surrendered, not only from foreign possessions, but also from British possessions and Colonies (other than the Cape Colony) in South -Africa.
The Law Officers are therefore requested to advise :---
Whether, in the case of a fugitive offender whose surrender to a Foreign State has been ordered by the Governor of a British possession under Section 17 of the Extradition Act, 1870, and who has been removed to the British Islands on his way to such Foreign State, the warrant of the Colonial Governor ordering the fugitive's surrender is sufficient to authorise his detention, and his recapture should he attempt to escape, while in the British Islands?
Yes.
Law Officers' Department,
December 19, 1903.
Opinion--
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
3474
SIR,
No. 211.
(TRANSVAAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[The Transvaal Precious Stones Ordinance, 1903.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
January 28, 1904. WE were honoured with your commands signified to us by Sir Montagu Ommanney in his letter of the 26th December last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us the Transvaal Precious Stones Ordinance, 1903 (Ordinance, No. 66, of 1903), together with the Attorney-General's report which accompanied it, and to state that, before advising His Majesty to assent to the Ordinance you would be glad if we would favour you with our report upon certain questions as to its legal construction and effect.
That it would be observed that the basis upon which mining for precious stones was to be carried on in the Transvaal was that of an undivided ownership as between the Government and the landowner, the former being entitled to 6/10ths and the latter to 4/10ths of the profits. That it was frankly the object of the Government to limit production, and keep up prices with a view to deriving the largest possible revenue from the mines of the Colony. That as, however, the monopoly which would thereby be maintained affected an article of pure luxury, and would be for the benefit of the taxpayer it was, in your opinion, free from serious economical or political objection.
That the chief objection which might be urged against the system intro- duced by the Ordinance was that the benefit to the taxpayers might have been enhanced by giving the landowner a smaller share in the profits, but that as the Ordinance had now been in operation for some months, you would probably be unable to press for amendment of its leading principles. That you were accordingly prepared to accept the general policy of the Ordinance.
That it was, however, clearly essential to provide that the limitation of output which might be imposed by the exigencies of the market upon owners of diamond mines should not operate to shut them down, and that the Government in the interests of the welfare and development of the Colony, must therefore secure that there should be continuous and reasonable working of the mines.
That he was to direct our attention to Sections 32-35 of the Ordinance, and to state that the security for continuous working thereby provided was, in your opinion. illusory.
mine, no
That in the peculiar circumstances of the diamond industry in South Africa it was reasonably certain that if the "owner" refused or failed to work satisfactory tender under Section 34 would be forthcoming, and that the only further resort of the Government would be to lease the mine to the owner under Section 35 upon such terms as might be agreed upon. That it followed that, unless Section 35 was to be read subject to Section 33, thus making the terms of the lease subject to final settlement by the Board created by the latter section, disagreement as to the terms of the lease would always arise between the Government and the land- owner, and produce an inevitable impasse.
That it did not appear to you, as at present advised, that Section 35 could be read subject to Section 33. That if the two sections were read with Section 34, as the context seemed to require, it would appear that, in view of the express pro- vision of the first proviso to Section 34, it was the intention of the Legislature that the terms on which tenders might be called for by the Government should be subject to settlement by the Board, and that, in view of the absence of such a provision in Section 35 it was the intention of the Legislature that the terms of a lease under that section should not be so subject.
That if this was the correct construction, the Ordinance must be amended so as to give the Government effectual powers of compelling reasonable and con- tinuous working of the mines. That this might, perhaps, be done by adding to Section 35 a proviso similar to the first proviso in Section 34, but that he was to state that you would prefer to substitute for sections 33-35 a section ør sections constituting a tribunal of arbitration composed in like manner.
16
Wt 664 2/04
D & S G
17109