PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
། ། ། ། ། །
Reference :-
C.O.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
That in the event of such a Bill passing into law the Secretary of State would propose to adopt Sir J. Anderson's suggestion that the Resident-General should be empowered to sign an Agreement on behalf of the Federated Malay States, and to authorize him to endeavour to enter into agreements with the Rulers of the Pro- tected States outside the Federation. That, on the satisfactory_conclusion of the Agreements, an Order in Council could be passed applying the Fugitive Offenders Act (as amended) to all the agreeing States, and grouping them with the Straits Settlements for the purposes of Part II. of that Act.
That the Secretary of State regretted that the complexity of the subject should necessitate a further reference to us, but that, in the circumstances, he felt that he had no alternative but to ask us to take the papers into our consideration and to advise him :—
}
(1) Whether, in view of the apparently limited application of any procedure under the Extradition Act, it would be worth while to adopt that procedure for the surrender of fugitive criminals between the Straits Settlements and the Protected States!
(2) If not, whether we would advise the introduction of a short Act, amending the Fugitive Offenders Act, which would apply to the surrender of all fugitive criminals (a) between the Straits Settlements and the Protected States, and (b) between the several Protected States, or (3) Whether any alternative procedure could be suggested which would be
more adequate to meet the difficulty?
We were also honoured with a letter from Mr. G. V. Fiddes, dated 11th March last, enclosing a further secret despatch from the High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States on the subject.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to the Secretary of State's commands, have the honour to
Report-
44
(1 and 2) that in our opinion the procedure of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, is more suited to the circumstances than that of the Extradition Act, 1870. The best course, therefore, is to introduce an Act in the Imperial Legislature amending the Fugitive Offenders Act and enabling it to be applied to the surrender of fugitive offenders both between the Straits Settlements and the Protected States and between the several Protected States inter se. This can be done by adding after the word jurisdiction," in Section 36, some such words as or any place or group of places over which His Majesty extends his protection." An Order in Council under the amended section could then direct that the Act should apply to the Protected States as one group, thus bringing into play the provisions of Section 25. Thereupon the arrest of a fugitive offender and his transport in a British ship, either of the Royal Navy or of the merchant service (Section 27), would be regarded as justified under the Act in any Court recognising British law, whether such transport was to or from the Straits Settlements, or was between two Protected States, or between two parts of the same Protected State.
Since the Protected States do not recognise British law, it would be further necessary for the ruler of each Protected State to make appropriate enactment, pro- viding for the arrest, transport, and detention of fugitive offenders so far as the focal law is concerned. The Legislature of a Sovereign State may properly authorise the conveyance in custody across the high seas of any person in a ship of its own nationality, and of any subject in a ship of any nationality. And we think that, since these States are under the protection of Great Britain, it would be possible for their local legislation to authorise the transport of any person across the high seas in a British ship. But we do not see how this authority. could extend to the use of a ship of a third Power, e.g., a German ship, unless the fugitive in custody was a subject of the legislating Power. Once a foreigner is on board a foreign ship and on the high, seas, he is subject to no law but that of his own State and that of the State to which the ship belongs.
(3) We can suggest no alternative procedure which would be more adequate to meet the difficulty.
The Right Honourable Lewis Harcourt, M.P.,
-&c.,
&c.,
&c.
We have, &c.,
RUFUS D. ISAACS. JOHN SIMON.
12752
No. 139.
(WESTERN Pacific.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Draft Regulation to provide for the control of the recruitment and employment of native labourers in the New Hebrides.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
18th April, 1911
SIR,
We were honoured with the Secretary of State's commands signified in Sir Francis Hopwood's letter of the 2nd June last, stating that he was directed by the Secretary of State to transmit to this Department. the accompanying despatches from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific forwarding the draft of a Joint Regulation to provide for the control of the recruitment and employment of native labourers in the New Hebrides.
That Sir F. Hopwood was also to enclose the drafts of two despatches in reply which the Secretary of State had had under consideration to address to Sir E. im Thurn, together with a copy of the Order in Council of the 2nd November, 1907, relating to the New Hebrides, to which are scheduled the Anglo-French Convention of the 20th October, 1906, and the notes exchanged on the 29th August, 1907, between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the French Republic.
That the draft Regulation was intended to be made under the powers conferred by Article III of the Convention" to issue jointly, for the peace, order, and good government of the Group, as well as for the execution of the measures resulting from the present Convention, local Regulations binding on all the inhabitants of the Group."
That the Secretary of State apprehended that if there was any conflict between such Regulations and the provisions of the Convention the latter must prevail, but that it did not seem unreasonable to conclude that the Regulations might amplify the Convention, provided they were not contrary to it, and might in certain cases create offences or deal with matters not specifically dealt with by the Convention.
That in regard to the subject-matter of the draft joint Regulation, elaborate provision was made by the Convention in Articles XXXI.-LVI., inclusive; and that the question arose whether any provisions of the draft Regulation (as it would be modified by the draft despatch from the Secretary of State) would be invalid as being in conflict with the Convention.
That it would be observed that the question was raised by the High Commis- sioner in the 4th and 5th paragraphs of his despatch, No. 12, of the 5th January,
1910.
That, in particular, the Secretary of State desired the Law Officers' attention to be directed to the following sections of the draft Regulation :-
(a) Section 4 (forfeiture of deposit).—Compare Article XXXI. (2) of the Convention. This provision appears to carry out the spirit of the Convention, and it is presumed that it is legally valid.
“(b) Section 5 (Power of Resident Commissioner to refuse or cancel licences). -Compare Articles XXXI. and LVI. (4) of the Convention. The Secretary of State apprehends that the power to issue a licence carries with it the power to refuse at discretion, but he feels some doubt in regard to the general power to revoke or suspend licences during their currency.
*(c) Section 7 (Engagement of females and boys prohibited). Compare Article XXXIII. of the Convention. It has been argued that though the restrictions imposed by this Article on the engagement of females and boys cannot be diminished, they may be increased by a joint Regulation on the ground that such action is not contrary to the Convention but is merely carrying further the policy initiated by it— inasmuch as previous to the Convention there were no legal restric- tions on such engagements, at least so far as British subjects were concerned. In other words, the Convention confers, according to this view, no right, but restricts a pre-existing liberty, which may he (20201-2) Wt. 06-481, 25, 711. DS.