CO885-(13-15) — Page 315

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

61

Reference -

TILLI C.O. 885

سلسا

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

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

3. We desire to remind your Lordship that in the third paragraph of our Report of the 3rd September 1892, we took the liberty of suggesting that a direct communica- tion should be made to the Chief Justice of the views of the Treaty Powers. We thought that this was due to the distinguished position he occupied, and that the zeal, ability, and industry he had shown entitled him to every consideration, a view in which we feel little doubt your Lordship will concur.'

We have, &c:

ì

(Signed)

C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY.

4527.

No. 29A.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE. MY LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Thomas

Royal Courts of Justice, March 1, 1893. Sanderson's letter of the 7th of January, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a letter and enclosures from the Colonial Office respecting an applica- tion made to the Governor of the Straits Settlements by the Acting United States Consul at Singapore for the extradition of one C. E. Miller, a citizen of the United States, who, being accused of embezzlement in Japan, had escaped from the extra- territorial jurisdiction possessed by the United States Consul in that country, and had taken refuge in the Straits Settlements.

That the extradition of Miller was refused in consequence of an informality in the warrant issued at Hiogo, and that the fugitive had been set at liberty; but that the Governor of the Straits Settlements had inquired whether the United States Government had, under any circumstances, the right to claim from that Colony the extradition to the United States authorities in Japan of a fugitivo American citizen accused of an extradition offence within the meaning of the "Ashburton " Treaty of the 9th August 1842 between Her Majesty and the United States of America, and the Extradition Convention supplementary to Article X. of that Treaty, which was signed at Washing ton on the 12th July 1889.

That before, however, furnishing him with instructions in the matter, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had asked whether there was any record in the Foreign Office of a previous case where extradition was demanded from any part of Her Majesty's dominions in respect of a crime committed in Japan, or in some other country in which the demanding Power possessed extra-territorial jurisdiction.

That no record of a similar case could be traced in the archives of the Foreign Office : and that since a question of principle of considerable importance was involved, Sir Thomas Sanderson was to submit to us the following observations, and to ask us to be good enough to favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the matter.

That Article X. of the Treaty with the United States of the 9th August 1842 (the Article relating to extradition), and the Act of Parliament giving effect to it, both referred to crimes committed" within the jurisdiction of the United States;" and that' a similar expression was used in the other Extradition Treaties concluded prior to 1870 between this country and foreign Stutes. That it was not specifically stated whether that term included extra-territorial jurisdiction; but that the inference would to be that it did not, since section 3 of the Act of Parliament (6 & 7 Vict., cap. 76) appear empowered a Secretary of Stato to deliver up an accused person to such person or persons as should be authorized to receive him, in order to convey him to the territories of the United States to be tried. &c.

That the Act of Parliament (6 & 7 Viet., cap. 75) for carrying out the Treaty with France of the 13th February 1843 (now expired), also spoke of the conveyance of the accused person to the dominions of the King of the French.

That the Treaty with the United States of the 5th August 1842 was still in force: but that both Acts of Parliament to which reference had been made were repealed by

The Extradition Act, 1870" (33 & 34 Vict., cap. 52).

That

Or

"The Extradition Act, 1870." did not contain the words "territories " dominions" in that connection. That the preamble alluded to crimes committed within the jurisdiction of foreign States, and that it was stated in section 11 of the Act that it should be lawful for any person to whom a warrant was directed, &c., “ to receive, hold in custody, and convey within the jurisdiction of such foreign State the criminal mentioned in the warrant." That section 25, however, of the Act ran as follows:- For the purposes of this Act every Colony, Dependency, and constituent part of a foreign State, and every vessel of that State, shall (except where expressly mentioned as distinct in this Act) be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of, and to be part of such foreign State." That if, therefore, the words contained in the above section were held to be an exhaustive definition of the term " jurisdiction," extra-territorial jurisdic- tion would seem to be excluded from the operation of the Act.

That most of the Extradition Treaties concluded by this country subsequent to the passing of

The Extradition Act, 1870," were worded so as to confine their operation to the cases of crimes committed within the “territories' of one of the contracting Parties. That of such were the Treaties with Germany, Belgium, Italy, Denmark,

74772-10.

28-393.