CO885-(13-15) — Page 94

24,920.

गय

mwin

Reference :—

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

with our opinion upon the various points raised therein, and with any general observations which we might have to offer upon the present position of, and method of dealing with, those claims.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report

That it could not be successfully contended by the United States of America that the communications which have passed between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States constitute an agreement that the discussion of the question of international right should be held over until after the decision of the Appellate Court in the United States upon the points raised in the proceedings there; but, assuming such an agreement to exist, we are of opinion that no claim should at present be made by Her Majesty's Government, except that the proceedings in the Appellate Court should be expedited by that Government as far as possible. We are of opinion that the giving of bonds in this Appeal would not involve any admission of the jurisdiction of the United States' Courts, as the bonds merely represent the vessels which were, in fact, under arrest; but it would be advisable, in any communication on the subject to the United States Government, to make it quite clear that Great Britain does not admit that any justification can possibly be found for the seizure of these vessels upon the high seas, and that the claim for compensation on that ground will be maintained, whatever may be the decision of the Appellate Court.

We see no reason

to modify our opinion upon this point given on the 20th August 1887.

Unless, from considerations of policy, it be thought desirable to postpone urging the claim of the owners of the vessels upon the United States Government until after the determination of the appeal, we are of opinion that the claim for compensation may now properly be pressed.

}

We have, &c..

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.

(Signell)

No. 133.

(Hoya Kona.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Law Officers' Department, Royal Courts of Justice, December 15, 1888. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 8th ultimo, stating that, with reference to previous Law Officers' reports respecting the extradition from Hong Kong of Chinese fugitive criminals, in pursuance

31 July 1886.

of Article XXI. of the Treaty of Tientsin, of the dates noted in the margin (of which 18 Sept. 1884. copies were enclosed for convenience of reference) he was directed by your Lordship 19 Sept. 1885. to inform us that, with the concurrence of the Marquis of Salisbury, your Lordship proposed, in view of the serious difficulties that had arisen under the existing Ordinances of Hong Kong which regulated such extradition, that the law of the Colony should be amended so as to assimilate the procedure more nearly to that pre- scribed by the Extradition Acts 1870 and 1873, and especially to relieve the Governor and Executive Council of the Colony of the duty of revising the magistrate's decision and satisfying themselves that the evidence was sufficient to justify the extradition of the person who had been committed by the magistrate.

That Mr. Wingfield was to enclose a draft Ordinance for that purpose (being a modification of a draft prepared in 1875) together with copies of the two existing Ordinances which it was proposed to repeal; and to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to the propriety and sufficiency of the provisions of that draft.

That the clauses numbered 10, 11, and 12 of the draft Ordinance had been inserted on the suggestion of the Marquis of Salisbury. That similar provisions were contained in an Ordinance providing for extradition to Macao (a copy of which was enclosed for reference), and that it had been thought necessary to provide, as in the Macao Ordinance, for a right of appeal by the fugitive criminal to the Supreme Court against a inagistrate's order of committal, in addition to his right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

That the Ordinances of 1865 referred to in the first schedule to the draft Ordinance, were similar to the Acts relating to the same subjects specified in the schedule to the Extradition Act, 1873.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we approve the draft Ordinance submitted to us, subject to the following amendments:—,

Clause 6, lines 1 and 3, omit "may" and insert "shall ”.

Clauses 10-12 should in our judgment be omitted, as we think it needless and undesirable to establish a practice as to appeal, in favour of the Government, which is not to be found in the law of this country.

Clause 10 (13 in the draft) should, in our opinion, run thus:-

Upon the expiration of 15 days from the date of committal, or, if a writ of habeas corpus is issued, upon the decision of the Court upon the return to the writ,

or after such further period as may be allowed by the Governor, the Governor may by warrant under his hand and seal, order, etc."

Clause 14, the words "in Council" should be omitted.

Clauses 17 and 18 should, in our opinion, be omitted. It is not desirable that such

a power should be given to the Governor.

Clause 19 should be limited by the omission of the words " or after ".

Clause 21, insert the words "on board a Chinese ship" before the words " high seas".

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.,

(Signed)

on the

RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE.

A

62950.-33. 25-12,88.