1318 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V
dating and amending the law, and when the Revised Statutes
(c. 155) appeared in 1906, another Order in Council suspended
the operation of the Imperial Acts. It may be added that it
is not altogether easy to see what practical advantage is thus
gained,! as the only difference resulting is that the detention
in this country of a prisoner while in transit from Canada to
a foreign state, or vice versa, under extradition is probably at
least informal and, if he escaped re-arrest, would have to be
under a new process, as against a fugitive offender at large
in this country, whereas if the proceedings were taken all
under the Imperial Act the warrant under which he was
being conveyed from Canada would be in these circum-
stances adequate authority for his re-arrest.
Again, the Acts of 1869 (32 Vict. c. 10) and 1884 (47 & 48
Vict. ¢. 31) provide for the removal of prisoners from one
Colony to another or to the United Kingdom in cases where
such removal may be deemed desirable. The first Act pro-
vides for permanent arrangements between two Colonies
approved by Order in Council ; the second for transfers in
individual cases. In all these cases the approval of the
Secretary of State is needed as well as the assent of both
Colonies, and the matter has sometimes attained considerable
political importance, as in the case of the deportation of the
chief Dinizulu from Zululand, and in the deportations from
Natal after the revolt of 1906-8 ;2 the prisoners were on the
coming into force of union released by the order of the new
Government. It would, of course, have been open to the
Natal Government and Legislature to banish the men in
question, but it could not by any exercise of legislative power
! Tt is true that the Governor now acts as a Colonial officer, not under
an Imperial Act, but that is only a formal difference. For the history of
this matter, see Canada Sess. Pap., 1877, No. 13, pp. 10 seq. ; Parl. Pap.,
0. 1482, 1526, 1557, 1621, 1645, 1683. Cf. also Forsyth, Cases and Opinions
on Constitutional Law, pp. 341-74 ; Clarke, Extradition, pp. 96 seq. Canada
also has provision in its Extradition Act (since 1889, c. 36) for extradition
without treaty, and the legality of this is seen from Attorney-General for the
Dominion of Canada v. Cain and Gilhula, [1906] A. C. 542; Robtelmes v.
Brenan, 4 C. L. R. 395 ; Hong Kong v. Attorney-General, [1910] T. S. 348.
¢ Parl, Pap., Cd. 3563, pp. 8, 9
