CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5] — Page 66

65

Spain, because with regard to the Spaniard this quality of treatment would not only not be assured, but would be completely wanting.

Let us examine this suggested principle of equality of con- @titutional treatment a little more closely; it will be found to

supply one of reasons which explain and justify the doctrine that treaties are non-existent during war in its special appli- cation to extradition treaties. It is well-known that during war enemy subjects are liable to special treatment (Now Encyclop XIV 564). They may be axiżuż ordered to leave the Country: they may be subjected to special exactions if they remain: so far as

the civil law is concerned their contracts are not enforceable

in the Courts: and so far as the criminal law is concerned, I

will not say that they would not have a fair trial, but it is

doubtful that treatment they would receive from an excited jury.

But this is certain, that in the event of law martial being

enforced (I use this term in order not to confuse it with

#

'Martial Law" as is so often done), they would be likely to

receuve sterner treatment than the subjects of neutral States.

I contend then that even if there were no such admitted doctrine

as that treaties cease to exist between two belligerent States,

these considerations show that there is abundant justification

for the doctrine that extradition treaties would cease to exist

in such circumstances, and that this justification would extend

In the case of war between two other countries, to prevent the

surrender from England of a subject of an belligerent on the

requisition of the other belligerent.

I now go one step further, and will endeavour to justify

the proposition, that extradition treaties are based on equally

of constitutional treatment of the fugitive, and that this is

conceived as existing only in time of peace.

(5)