some of the milder alterations of the existing arrangements, which are suggested in the Consul's letter, may be favourably considered.
These are:
(1) That neither the accused nor the Chinese Govt be represented by Lawyers at the preliminary investigation.
(2) That the Registrar-General should, as being closely acquainted with Chinese thought and character, sit as Assessor in Rendition cases.
With both these proposals the Hongkong Govt has refused, and I think, rightly refused to entertain.
(3) That on receipt of a Telegram from the Consul, any person whose extradition is to be demanded should be arrested.
At present, in such cases the Govt may, under Section 4 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1889, require a Magistrate to issue a Warrant for the alleged criminal's arrest.
The understanding in such cases is that if the accused is found not guilty, reparation for unjust imprisonment and all expenses shall be borne by the Chinese Govt.
(4) This proposal, which the Attorney-General deals with in his report, deals with the question of banishment rather than that of extradition.
The proposal is that the Govt should be informed in case of the banishment of any person of notoriously bad character from the Colony.
If we were not dealing with China, it would be only fair to grant the request, but I believe that if the Chinese officials thought there were bad men in Hongkong they would send them back to China without a request.
This point should not be conceded.
(5) That any Chinese Resident in Hongkong should be compelled to give evidence in China if required to do so.
The Attorney-General objects to this proposal entirely. If Witnesses fare little better than the Accused, and are liable to torture, the proposal cannot be entertained.
(6) The last proposal is that depositions taken in China be accepted as evidence in Hongkong.