Memorandum of Coval Fraser on the Viceroy's proposals they seem to be as follows:
cts to all the for.
in the Viceroy's effect
malifier and expense.
The admission, as I have
I have suggested of Depositions, in certain cases,
would lower this.
(2) The question of extraditable and non-extraditable offences was settled by paragraph 6 of Lord Knutsford's despatch A237 of 20th February, 1889.
(3) Alterations to be confined to homicide and robbery.
These are
practically the cases
I have specified as those where depositions might be admitted.
(4) Unfamiliarity of Hong Kong Magistrate with Chinese
ways
people, their
and habits of thought.
Seeing that Magistrate hears hundreds of Chinese witnesses every week and has before him crowds of Chinamen every year he becomes rapidly only too familiar with Chinese ways and evidence.
(5) That the Viceroy only applies for Extradition when he is satisfied by his subordinates that a prima facie case exists.
It is not for the applicant for Extradition to decide the question of "proof of guilt:" Unless the normal International custom in such cases is to be set aside in favour of the Viceroy, it is the Magistrate of the State where the accused is residing, who must decide whether sufficient proof of guilt is given to justify extradition, and while absolute proof is not demanded sufficient evidence to justify committal for trial is reasonably required. Cannot recommend that the Viceroy's decision on statement of his subordinate should be accepted as to proof of guilt.