CO129-406 - Public Offices - 1913 — Page 477

**

475

24

sand bro

*.

i

16566/2 fine.

Office on the 26th March, 1902, the procedure in England was described and the position was summed up av fellows :-

"In America the procedure is widely different, and "it would seem almost as though His Majesty's GovernINESTIĆ, "is regarded as having acquires no right under the Treaty *of 1842 except that of appearing in the Federal Courte "and instituting what is closely analogous to an ordinary "prosecution, the action of the United States Government "being confined, so far as Mr Ritchie is aware, to the *issue of a warrant of surrender as soon as the require-

"mente of law have been satisfied”

3 Mr McKenna believes that this letter with other

30165641 f. correspondence on the subject was communion ted by the

Foreign Office to your Department in 1902.

It is certain that, if a similar question to that

which arises in the present care, wore to arise on an application for extradition from the United Stater of America, it would be left to the English Government to raise it in the United States Courts, asni in view of the

position thus taken up by the United Beatas Government, Mr McKenna does not consider it necessary for the Hong- Kong Government to concede the slain of the American Consul -General, and would suggest that the Consul-General should be informed that any further proceedings that may be possible to test the validity of the Police Magistrate's decision in this case should be taken by him.

♫ I am to add that there appears to be a misapprehension in the suggestion on page 4 of Ir Busknill's Memorandum enclosed with your letter to the affect that the lagistrate should be called on to "carry out the terms of the "Governor's requisition according to 1a" "The "Becretary of State's Order to a Police Magistrate appended to the

(Extradition