CO885-(13-15) — Page 466

+

SIR,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

15709.

No. 114.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received July 27, 1896.)

Royal Courts of Justice, July 27, 1896.

We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 24th instant, stating that with reference to our Report of the 27th of April 1896,* on the construction of Article IV. of the London Convention with the South African Republic of 27th February 1884, he was directed by you to inform us that an Extradition Treaty between the Netherlands and the South African Republic was concluded on the 9th November 1895, that ratifications of it were exchanged at the Hague on the 19th of June, and that it had been published in the Official Gazette at the Hague.

That Mr. Wingfield was to enclose a copy of a translation of the Decree directing No. b its publication and copies of Despatches from Her Majesty's Minister at the Hague l' upon the subject.

Treaty,

No. 9

That this Treaty had not been communicated to Her Majesty's Government by the Treaty, Government of the South African Republic as required by Article IV. of the Conven- July '96. tion, nor had any communication on the subject been addressed by the Government of the Netherlands to Her Majesty's Government.

That in the preamble of the Treaty it would be observed, that it was referred to as a "fresh" Treaty, but that Her Majesty's Government were not aware of any previous Extradition Treaty or Convention between the Netherlands and the South African Republic.

That in concluding and ratifying this Treaty the Governments of the Netherlands and of the South African Republic appeared to have disregarded the stipulation of Article IV. of the Convention, and that both the Marquess of Salisbury and yourself considered that representations should be made to and explanations requested from each of these Governments on the subject; and Mr. Wingfield was to request that we favour you with our opinion as to the form in which such representations should be made in each case.

In obedience to your commands we have taken the matter into our consideration and have the honour to--

Report-

}

That there appears to have been a clear infraction by the South African Republic of the terms of Article IV. of the Convention of 1884.

We think that a representation of the facts so far as known should be made to the Government of the South African Republic; that their attention should be called to the terms of Article IV.; that they should be informed that Her Majesty's Govern- ment must insist on the observance of this Article, and cannot recognise the validity of any Treaty concluded without Her Majesty's sanction; and that they should be asked for an explanation of their apparent disregard of the terms of the Article in this

instance.

We think that the Government of the Netherlands should be informed of the terms of Article IV.; that they should be apprised that the Government of the South African Republic have no power to conclude a Treaty except with the approval of Her Majesty, and that Her Majesty's Government cannot recognise the validity of the Treaty of Extradition which has been concluded without Her sanction,

Although the particular Treaty now in question may not be in itself of great importance, the principle involved is obviously of the utmost gravity, and the breach of the Convention in this case, if condoned, would no doubt be followed by other breaches in matters of vital importance.

The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

Colonial Office.

• No.

.

90586.-95.

25.---8/96.