a
perate and
Commul at
given up
demanded through; the
Canton That he should be
to them. The Consul must have
been well aware
J
the phraseology of the Artile of the Treaty of Sentain res,
as
respecting rendition of alleged Criminals which is follows: " Article XXI. If Criminals subjects
of China shall take refuge in Hong Kong board the British, Ships there, they rquisition by the the
I fre
"shall upon due
"Authorities be searched for and
-proof of
Chinese
their guilt, be delivered up?
In the first place
political refugee
Wong being
Ms. Wors
did not according to the
usual relations between
European
faill within the category of
the
States
Artule at all; but comirning the
article to apply to Mo - Wong's
was
173
however made to fulfil the condition the 31ch Art of the Treaty of Trenton, the Chinese Authorities made this requisition
to the Consal of Canton for the rendition of the Chief tho - Wong ; - The Consul mode the demand upon the Acting Governs of Hong Kong ( the Governor being absent at the time) and be in dereliction of the soleman duty impersed upon him by the 2004 Art . of the Treaty placed the unhappy
the Consul
-
MonWong in the hands.
at
Canton,
of
who delivered him
Mandarins; the Consul and
Are
over
to the
Acting Governo the haritle
consequently responsible for
results involving cannibalism, deputed in statement; of the truth of
the following statement ;
which there would seem to be no doubt
the
As
they h
British Consul and the Authorities at
Nhưng trong
M. Wong
unre prohibited from delicuring to the Canton Mandarins, until proved his guilt. No attempte
after they had
has
here
antrified by an Office of
F.M. Service.n
"Overland Trade Geport
The
Cate
イ
"
Hong Kong Tuesday May 304
extradition
referred to in
Last