CO129-505-10 Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 14-7-1927 - 2-11-1927 — Page 58

COPY.

58

Honourable Colonial Secretary,

1.

The Consul General is mistaken in thinking that I

agree with his view that the courts could be prevented from

inquiring into the question as to whether the requisition complies

with the Ordinance. The argument in my minute of the 10th August

might perhaps be put more clearly thus :-

(a) The courts in England will accept as conclusive fn

a definite statement from the Secretary of State

for Foreign Affairs on the question of the status

of a foreign goverment; e.g., whether the Sultan

of Johore is an independent sovereign, or whether

His Majesty's Government recognises the existence

of Finland as a sovereign state.

(b) The courts here would probably accept as conclusive

a definite certificate from the Governor on a similar

point.

(c) here the status of the foreign government is not

clear and definite and recognition by ilis Majesty's

Goverment is only provisional or partial, the

Secretary of State will refuse to make a bald,

definite, statement, but will place the courts in

the possession of the diplomatic facts and leave

the court to draw its own conclusions, as in the

case of athonia in The Gagara (1919) P.95 and

Russia in Luther v. Sagor (1921) 3 K.B. 532.

(d) The present case is not a case of the status of

a foreign goverment or of the reconition of an

international person. It is a question of the

internal organization of a foreign state. The

case of Lusmann v. Angelke, referred to in

paragraph 3 below, emphasizes this distinction.

(0)/