CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6] — Page 9

0.

A

نت

2. 1 epi、 1.

Moot Is brodet .nell

VADO HWY OBLI

da nevsinoq, dwoo Zin'.

of clut veod cen

. 180 Dā

Q Am... I HANOME F

3.

لوافدة

C

1. ciometi m

•

om our (soroqul M.

10%

JUTIT O.

ik

i bevonne whi

Ba) Jnd DVA

110 00 11 TING

00 IN

bsd

By and Inho,

$ (241

i i

II. D

1

08.30

In 19

now avainigen Lid 0

YOUNGVo)

...

9 J 10

نا

I {JWA

buðuin-

Jonių b

0 3.40

Chan 11098

1

Sv (3) I

U DO LOTING

You i vi8888804 unwind

zolou: lat". benose min.

je impor

}

This as I read it means that if the crime has

been committed in a constituent part of the United States (to

take an example from the case before us) the requisition should

come from the Consul-General, and if it has been committed in a

Colony or dependency of the United States then the requisition should come from the Governor of the Colony or Dependency.

Now in Sotto's case the requisition came

from the Governor of the Philippines and therefore it was

necessary for the Crown to show that those Islands are a Colony

or Dependency of the United States. The only American lawyer in

the Colony, Mr. Anderson, the United States Consul-General, was

accordingly called to give evidence before the Magistrate and

said (see copy depositions attached)

"The Philippine Islands are a constituent part of the

U.S.A. We have no Colonies, dependencies nor protector-

-ates".

It would seem therefore that if this is a correct statement of

mixed law and fact that the requisition came from the wrong

person and that Sotto would have been entitled to this dis-

-charge for that reason. With all respect for the Consul- -General I am rather inclined to the opinion that he is wrong as to the meaning of the words as understood by English lawyers. The extradition Act is an English Statute and I think the words

"Colony or Dependency" must be given an English meaning.Sub-

-sequently to committal the U.S. Consul-General filed an

affidavit but as the facts therein stated were not before the

Magistrate the full court declined to look at it. A copy of this affidavit is attached. It would seem from a perusal of this document that the Philippines are what we in England or in

Hongkong would call a Colony or dependency of the U. S. but that

as such expressions are unknown to the U. S. Constitution

American lawyers call them "territories*. For the present I am

prepared to give the opinion that the Philippine Islands are

Colony or dependency and that therefore the requisition should 箕

come from the Governor and not from the Consul-General but as