CO885-(11-13) — Page 638

13,367.

MY LORD,

No. 17.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Robert

Royal Courts of Justice, August 6, 1884. Herbert's letter of the 24th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to enclose a copy of an Order in Council providing for the extradition of fugitive criminals from the Straits Settlements.

That the immediate object of that Order was to provide for the extradition to the States adjacent to the Straits Settlements which had been previously effected under an Indian Act, a doubt having arisen whether the Indian Act remained in force after the passing of the Extradition Act, 1870, but that it would be seen that the Order authorised extradition to any foreign state in the case of which the Extradition Act, 1870, did not apply.

That your Lordship did not think it desirable that extradition should take place under the Order in Council, except to States adjacent to the Straits Settlements, and that, assuming the Order left it optional with the Governor to comply with or refuse applications for extradition under its provisions, your Lordship proposed to instruct the Governor not to comply with such applications from any other states than those above referred to.

That our opinion was requested as to whether upon the true construction of the Order in Council, the Governor of the Straits Settlements might decline to comply with requisitions for extradition made by a foreign State in the case of which the Extradition Act, 1870, did not apply, and if so, whether he might properly be instructed to decline to comply with such requisitions unless made by a State whose territory was adjacent to the Straits Settlements.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That we do not think that on the true construction of the Order in Council an absolute discretion is vested in the Governor whether he will or will not take extradi- tion proceedings in case of a requisition by any foreign State, in the case of which the Extradition Act of 1870 does not apply. And if there be not such an absolute discre- tion, it appears to us that there cannot be any discretion whatever. At all events the exercise of such a discretion might give rise to grave difficulties.

We would therefore suggest that the Order in Council should be amended by limiting and defining in some way the foreign States to which it is to apply.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

The Right Hon. the Earl of Derby, K.G.

&c.

&c.

&c.

HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.

λ

15987-68. 85,-19/65

།།།།།།

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO