حيل
June 28, 1905.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
JUSTICE AT HONGKONG,
(Daily Press, 24th June.)
885
to say anything in extenuation of his offence ⚫r in mitigation of the penalty. Had he been wealthy enough to have engaged a solicitor to assist him in presenting a defence, the Magistrate's decision would in from what it was, for, according to the all probability have been very different
things that would have commended them-
notice; but as it was not the full month's selves to any sanely constituted mind, and
notice demanded by the law the plea was the EMPEROR has taken skilful advantage
taken as one of "guilty " and that ended of the opportunities. They, however,
the prisoner's part in the proceedings. explain much that has been misrepresented
The prosecutor, an Englishman, then As great events may from little causes as inspired by some bigh minded disin-
told the Court his story in 籍 terestedness, which has been altogether the case of a humble Chinese workman, spring, we make no excuse for referring to
language very imperfectly understood absent as an actuating motive. In other which seems to us to involve serious ques- by the prisoner, and as it does not words, the German EMPEROR has beentious of principle. We refer to the prosecu. appear to have been the business of the pressing peace between Russia and Japan, tiou, or persecution, of a Chinese pressman Court interpreter to tell the prisoner what uot from any sentimental feelings, but
in the employ of the Daily Press office who was being alleged against him by an Eng- simply that it was his interest to save
has this week been fined $50 with the alter-lish witness, there was no cross-examination Russia from further calamity.
leaving his previous employment without native of two months' imprisonment for and no further opportunity for the prisoner
proper notice.
It is easy to conceive of circumstances under which the imposition of such a penalty would be fully justified, but in the present case we think the mau and we sincerely hope the case may be an was unjustly treated from beginning to end, isolated rather than a typical one. upon as an answer to recent intimacies with
man was in the first place arrested without Russia. Of all the topics discussed in the
a vestige of legal sauction, and by what we recent understanding, it happened that that of French relations with Morocco was the
at present regard as a most improper sub. one received with least enthusiasm interfuge. A Chinese detective sergeant of police entered our office without permission, England. Skilfully treated,
treated, Germany might have seriously endangered at the very the man might accompany him to the police found his man, and asked the manager if outset the new entente. The KAISER took, station "to answer some inquiries." Per- however, a bad time, when many of the mission was, of course, readily given and initial differences had just been removed by the man went away with the police officer, personal intercourse between the KING and the PRESIDENT, to pay his hasty and ill-con-not suspecting for a moment that he was sidered visit to the SULTAN. This was
It is not so easy to fathom the actuating motive in the apparently altogether mean- ingless quarrel sought to be forced on Frauce. In spite of his many asseverations to the contrary, there is little doubt that the recent understanding come to between France and England has not been altogether palatable at Berlin, where it has been looked
accompanied by an act of almost studied per- sonal rudeness, which prevented a meeting
between the QUEEN and the EMPEROR. These conditions were unfortunate, but as
neither France nor England desired to make them a cause of offence, they might have been removed or passed over. Un. fortunately, with many of the virtues of earnestness, the EMPEROR accompanies them with some of its worst defects. Quite aware that he had committed a faux pas, he was
course
to
yet too proud to retire when the door was opened from an untenable position, and a difficulty which a few words would have removed has now grown into large dimen- sions. The worst of the situation is that neither the world nor, for the matter of that, the parties themselves, are able to explain the misunderstanding. Germany has been stating in an indefinite way that France bas been trying to impose her influence in Morocco in a manner detri. mental her (Germany's) interests. What those interests are she does not define, nor does she, unless in the most indefinite manner, point out the acts com plained of. Departing from the usual of diplomatic intercourse, the EMPEROR is credited with having made certain promises, which the SULTAN apparently took as an invitation to openly cast off any further relations. Alarmed at the result, the EMPEROR is said to have hastily retired, but apparently the contre- temps did not lead him to explain his meaning sufficiently to do away with the false impression. Unfortunately, the course adopted by Germany is suggestive of the somewhat similar misunderstandings which occurred before the outbreak of the war of 1870. As explained by the chief actor in them, many years after, these misunder- standings had been carefully planned with the object of embroiling the two countries in a war. Now we do not desire to go the length of saying that the present German Chancellor, Count VON BELOW, has any such intention, or really seeks to involve the two nations in a quarrel to be only decided We can only by the arbitration of war, point out the coincidences, which seem to be sufficient to excite in Europe the gravest apprehension for the immediate future.
The
being arrested. There was to our know- As he was absent much longer than seemed lodge no mention of arrest or apprehension. necessary, inquiry was made by telephone And the information was elicited that the man was detained in custody on a charge of leaving his previous employment without proper notice. Though, as the reader is ware, to leave employment without notice is a criminal charge in Hongkong, yet the arrest of the man in this way was an out- rage not sanctioned by the law of 1902 relating to Employers and Servants under which this charge was brought. Section 13
reads:-
"If it be made to appear to a magistrate that there is good ground for believing that any party against whom a complaint has been made under this Ordinance, has absconded or is about to abscond, such magistrate may issue a warrant to
apprehen such party and detaiu him in custody until the hearing of such complaint, unless such party shall give security to the satisfaction of such magistrate for his appearance to answer such complaint.”
In the present case there was no "good ground" for believing that the man against whom complaint was made was was not tire about to abscond-there slightest reason to fear it for a moment, and we understand that no warrant was issued for his arrest and detention. He was taken into custody in flagrant disregard of the plain provisions of the statute. This, to begin with, suggests a question of grave principle, and we fancy that most Englishmen who realise the importance of the liberty of the subject, the birth-right of every British subject, will share our uneasi- ness until some official enquiry sults in the admission and censure of the irregularity, or throws upon it some extenuatory light. There was another informality, at the trial, when a person, not the prosecutor, and not a solicitor, was permitted to address the Bench in application for a severe penalty.
As to the trial itself it is impossible to regard it as satisfactory, and we feel sure that had the man's defence been properly put before the magistrate, his Worship would have taken a far more lenient view of the case than he did. The prisoner was, of course, asked to plead whether he was
'guilty
"not guilty"; or
and he pleaded that he had given twenty days'
装着
11
man's own story, which he claims could be supported by evidence, he would seem to
have
had
a fairly strong defence, and it been placed before the Court, we can hardly conceive that the maximum fine of $50 would have been imposed on a man
who, at the worst, was guilty of only a earning $22 a month. In default of paying such a (to him) large sum, the defendant
technical breach of the Ordinance, bas to
endure for two months the treatment of a
real criminal.
solicitor?
It may, of course, be retorted that if. been done a re-hearing would doubtless be allowed. injustice has
We certainly regarded it as a case for a re-hearing; but of what use is a re-hearing uneducated Chinaman, unless to an he has the assistance of a To a man who earns but $22 a month, the valuable and indispensable assistance of a solicitor is as unattainable as the moon; and so he goes his way, smarting under a penalty which would probably have been reduced to more just proportions had he been able to have his case properly presented. That con- clusion is irresistible, and it is one which carries with it the conclusion that a man in the dock is liable to suffer as much for his ignorance and poverty as 'for his crime. As employers of Chinese labour, we are the least likely to encourage Chinese servants to breaches of an Ordinance designed to protect employers; but no con-iderations of self-interest can shut our eyes to apparent injustice. This poor Chinaman was inform- ally arrested, in contravention of the Or dinance; and, irrespective of the whole circumstances and merits of his particular case, was punished to the maximam extent as a warning." We appreciate the salue suitable case being used as example, any but British law is meant to punish delin- quents, not to penalise scapegoats.
4
of
A COMPLICATED SHIPPING
CASE.
(Daily Press 26th June.) To-day, the Shanghai lawyers are arguing legal points connected with the ownership of the tug-boat Samson, which was widely advertised as having been purchased by Mr. BURLEIGH of the Daily Telegraph as a despatch boat, and has since been claimed by the agent of the Russian Government. The vessel has changed hands several times, and the litigation is, of course, for its value, put at taels one hundred thousand. The defendant, a Danish subject namet M. L. KRISTENSEN, acting as attorney for the nominal owner, re-sold the Samson to its original owners, the Shanghai Tug and Lighter, Co., and seems to consider that the plaintif M. PAVLOV, formerly Russian