509
statement to the Legislative Council, before the introduction of the measure, from which it appears that he had
1. previously written a full despatch upon the subject dated 9th August, 1888 and that the Chief Justice (Sir James Russell) and the then Attorney General (I presume / Sir Edward O'Malley) had previously furnished him with remarks and notes upon the matter (our report in Daily Press of 18th May 1889 appended).
18th May
We
A careful perusal of [extract omitted] to show that Sir William Des Voeux eventually abandoned
The clause which admitted in evidence
the Depositions how taken in China (see commencement of this Excellency's speech reported in the Daily Press of 28th May 1889).
The strong apprehensions
9.
entertained by the Hon. Official Members as to the dangers attending the introduction of law
great facilities for extradition to
of
China is demonstrated not only by
not that all
fact
their speeches but by the fact that all of them, except one, Mr Chater) voted against the third reading of the bill (see report Daily Press of 26th June 1889). My experience of the present Ordinance dates from 1890, and I am of opinion that the Ordinance has proved fairly satisfactory.
In some case, no doubt, there has been considerable delay and not infrequently Extradition has been refused owing to the absence of reliable evidence, but the cause of delay had generally been adjournments asked for by the Chinese Authorities to enable them to produce further evidence which might have been produced at first. There can be little doubt that much trouble and expense would be saved to the Chinese Authorities if the Depositions (see Extradition Act 1870, sec. 14 and Extradition Act 1873 sec. 4) duly authenticated (when taken)