"Article 2 of the Rendition Agreement stipulates that in cases involve ing imprisonment for ten years or more and in cases involving the death penalty, the Provisional Court shall report the same to the Kiangsu Provincial Government for approval; and, then in cases in which the Provincial Government refuses its approval, the Provincial Government shall give its reasons and, anier the Provisional Court to-rehear the case and again submit the judgment to the Provincial Govern. ment.
The criticisms made by the Provineial Government in returning the ease of Li Yih-san et al. to the Provisional Court for rehearing are not: "reasons" in any—true sense meaning of the word. The Rendition Agreement requires that reasons shall be given, and it is quite' logical and reasonable to conclude that the reasons contemplated shall The criticisms accompanying the return of this ease amount to. little more than fictitious excuses arbi-tranly devised, it would seem, to embarrass and discredit the Provisional Court by interfering with. the lawful execution of ite. judgments and by requiring ite judg to amend, to-do what they cannot amend, to do what they are not legally bound to do, and to hear testimony that may'no longer be obtainable, Tt is manifestly impo this Court to function constituted without the operation and genuine desire of both thorities to carry out the letter and the spirit of the Rendition Agreement.
There is no Court at Nanking that can properly function as a Court of Appeal for cases coming under the jurisdiction of the Shanghai Pro-mal Court. Appellate jurisdiction is provided for in the Rendition Agreement and no tribunal other than that specified in the Rendition Agreement should revise or quash, directly or indirectly, the valid judgments of the Provisional Court
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.