4547.
It is clearly not the law in this country, for Pooley v. Whetham decided that a person surrendered to this country for an extradition offence might, after being acquitted of that charge, be detained in custody under an attachment for contempt of Court committed before the surrender, the Court holding that such contempt was not an offence within section 19 of "The Extradition Act, 1870." -
We agree that the action of the Canadian Judges was of very questionable propriety, and might naturally give rise to suspicion and remonstrance on the part of the United States; but having regard to the fact that the prisoner was tried and convicted of the extradition offence, which was one of a very grave character, we think the remission of a portion of the sentence should satisfy the United States, and prevent the prisoner suffering from the excessive sentence inflicted by the Canadian Judges for contempt of Court.
A
We have, &c.
(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
MY LORD,
No. 7.
(CANADA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, March 4, 1892. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 19th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit, for our consideration, the accompanying correspondence respecting the grant of com- pensation to British sealers who were excluded from Behring's Sea under the modus vivendi entered into with the United States last
year.
That that agreement was not signed and the necessary legislation obtained for its enforcement until after the scaling fleet had proceeded to sea, and that Her Majesty's Government accordingly promised in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 13th of June last to consider cases of direct loss arising out of the enforcement of the prohibition, of which no previous notice had been given.
That it was now proposed to send out an officer or officers to inquire into such cases on the spot, and that Mr. Bramston was to transmit, for our consideration, the draft of Despatch to the Governor General of Canada informing him of that proposal, and indicating the basis upon which Her Majesty's Government proposed to assess the compensation.
That the draft had been approved by the Marquis of Salisbury and the Lords Com- missioners of the Treasury, and that your Lordship would be glad if we would take the papers into our consideration, and inform you whether we saw any objection to the proposed Despatch, and favour you with any observations or suggestions which we might have to offer on the subject.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That, having regard to the terms of the previous communications, we see no objec- tion to the proposed Despatch as altered and initialled by us, but we think it right to point out that the language of the fourth paragraph puts a construction upon the words "direct loss" which could not in all cases be supported.
There may be claims in which the question of the loss of probable profits from the interrupted voyage may be an element to be considered, especially having regard to the set off due to enhanced price referred to in the previous paragraph.
The Right Hon.
Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.
&c. &c. &c.
We have, &c.
(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
Draft.
บ
mmf C.O. 885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
LORD STANLEY of PRESTON.
MY LORD,
Downing Street, February, 1892,
25th Nov.
La
I HAVE the honour to acquaint you that Her Majesty's Government have had before them your Despatches of the numbers and dates noted in the margin, dealing No. 300, with the question of compensation to the sealers who were excluded from Behring's No. 299, Sea by the operation of the modus nivendi with the United States.
28 Nov. No. 298,
23 (ct.
No. 254,
2. The proposals as to the basis on which compensation should be given which were 31 Nov. made by your Ministers in the minute which accompanied your Despatch of the 7th No. 278, September and those submitted on behalf of the sealers in the enclosure in your No. 260, Despatch of the 21st of November, go considerably beyond those which Her Majesty's Oct. Government stated that they were prepared to offer in the letter from this Department Oct. to the High Commissioner for Canada of the 13th of June last communicated to you No. 252, in my Despatch No. 128 of the same date, and in the answer made to Mr. Staveley No. 228, Hill's question in the House of Commons on the 29th of June.
3. It was there pointed out that the effect of the modus vivendi in enhancing the price of skins caught outside the prohibited area must be set off against the loss caused by the prohibition, and, with this qualification, Her Majesty's Government intimated that they would be prepared to consider any case in which it was clearly established that direct loss had been suffered by a British subject owing to the pro-
0 70451.-8. 25.-8,92.
1 Oct.
7 Sept.
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.