suaP. x11] LEGISLATION FOR THE DOMINIONS 1317
of the Imperial Government in passing an Order in Council
applying the rules to cases of extradition between Great
Britain and any specified foreign power. The Act thus
legalizes not merely the arrest in the Colony, but detention
outside on the high seas, a point necessary, as the Chief
Justice of the Commonwealth pointed out in McKelvey v.
Meagher: because of the territorial limitations of Colonial
legislation. The Act also allows room for action by the
local legislature ; there are two possibilities : either the local
parliament may enact a complete code of extradition rules
and then have that code given full effect by an Order in
Council which suspends for the time being the Extradition
Act in respect of that Dominion for such time only as the Act
remains in force, or ‘the Legislature may confine its activity
to provisions as to what Courts are to exercise the power of
sommitting offenders, and so on. Or the Crown may merely
act upon the Imperial Act as in Newfoundland? and the Trans-
vaal. The former method is that adopted by Canada. In this
matter Canada has had a curious history ; the Legislature
of Upper Canada in 1833 (3 Will. IV. ¢. 7) authorized extra-
dition without a treaty, and in 1843, when the Act (6 & 7 Vict.
c. 76) to confirm the Ashburton Treaty of 1842 was passed, it
was provided that its effect could be suspended in Canada
by Order in Council if a Canadian Act were passed to give
suitable powers ; this was done for the Province of Canada in
1849 and in 1868 (c. 94) for the whole of Canada. When the
Imperial Act of 1870 was passed there was a desire in Canada
to adopt the same plan respecting all extraditions as that in
force under the statutes regarding the Ashburton Treaty,
but there was long delay in acceding to this request, and Acts
of 1873 and 1874, which were reserved, did not come into
offect. But an Act of 1877 (c. 25), as amended in 1882 (c. 20),
was ordered to be taken as suspending, while it remained in
operation, the action of the Imperial law, and in 1888 a similar
order was issued in respect of the Act of 1886 (c. 142) consoli-
© (1906) 4 C. L. R. 265. » vs Stone v
2 In re Israel Goldstein, 1905 Newfoundland Decisions, 247 ; Stone v.
Rez, [19061T. 8.855. Cf. Pigoott. Extradition, pp. 181 seq.
