257
2
5.-A certain character ( Kwan) was said by the said Sham In to refer to your Petitioner, and, on the 13th July, 1897, your Petitioner was suddenly suspended on the charge of neglecting to report the gambling house No. 2, Wah Lane, and on the 21st August, was tried by and before Captain Superintendent May, C.M.G.. and on his recommendation dismissed from the Police Force by H.E. Sir William Robinson, G.C.M.G., Governor of Hongkong.
6.-Your Petitioner submits, that unless the provisions of the local law clearly excluded such right, he was entitled to the treatment and form of trial provided by the Colonial Office Rules Nos. 83-86 for the case of an officer of the 3rd class under Rule No. 66 (and footnote), (Sec Schedule No 2.)
7.--As to local law, the Police Force Consolidation Ordinance, No. 14 of see.sch 1887, Sections 2 and 22, provides that any subordinate officer, including any VG 3 D Inspector, guilty of neglect or violation of duty in office, or any other misconduct
as an officer, shall upon conviction before a magistrate, forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding two hundred dollars, and in default of such payment be liable to six months imprisonment.
8. But Section 24 enacts, " The Governor shall have power upon the representation of the Captain Superintendent to dismiss any subordinate officer.
for misconduct or neglect of duty." Your Petitioner contends, however, that this ought only to be construed to mean that the Governor may dismiss any police officer after a trial under Section 22; otherwise, taken by itself, and literally, the above Section 24 empowers the Governor, upon the sole condition of a representation by the Captain Superintendent, to dismiss any police officer summarily without any form of trial whalever, or even without any charge made This against him, and without giving him any opportunity of being heard. latter reading, however, appears to be that adopted by the Hongkong Govern- ment, but whether upon the advice of the Attorney General of the Colony or not your Petitioner does not know, and ventures to doubt. Such a construc- tion leads to conclusions so repugnant to the principles of British justice that, your Petitioner submits, it stands self condemned in view of the alternative reasonable construction suggested by your Petitioner, whereby alone some guarantee is afforded to a Police Officer in respect of his position and pension against the arbitrary decision of the Governor, or practically speaking, as in your Petitioner's case, of the Captain Superintendent. After a trial under Section 22. H.E. the Governor would at least have valid materials on which to come to a conclusion in respect of any representation made by the Captain Superin- tendent to him.
9. Further, your Petitioner points out that strictly speaking Section 24 only applies to "dismissal," and that he had, therefore, a right to the benefit of the aforesaid Colonial Office Rules in respect of "suspension," whereas he was suspended on July 13th, 1897, without any of the prescribed formalities. The Section, in short, does not affect to deal with the mode of suspension. And your Petitioner would beg that his contention generally may, if thought necessary, be submitted to the legal advisers of the Department.
3
10. But whatever may be the strict legal construction of the above Soction, your Petitioner points ont that under the Colonial Office Rules (1897), 96(d), an officer holding an office of even the lowest rank now has a right before dismissal to have an investigation by the Governor in person, and your Petitioner respectfully submits that even assuming that he had no strict legal right to the benefit of the Colonial Office Rules, 84-86, still in view of his office of trust, long service, and the importance of the issue to him, the investigation into his case ought to have been conducted in accordance with the spirit and substance of the said Rules. Your Petitioner is persuaded that if the investigation had originally taken place before the Governor, and he had seen the witnesses and heard the accused himself, the result would have been different. 11.-So far from the spirit and substance of the said Rules having been observed, practically nothing of the bencfit of the procedure therein prescribed was accorded to your Petitioner. He was called in, verbally informed of the charge, stood to attention the whole time, got no proper inspection of the document nised against him, had no menus of making notes, and could not check the Captain Superintendent in putting leading questions to the witnesses. As, however, these witnesses practically had nothing to say against your Petitioner, the question of procedure forms a minor part of his grievance. Ilis principal complaint is that the investigation, and practical decision of his case, was loft to the very officer who was his prosecutor, who had before the trial made up his mind against your Petitioner, and committed himself to the view of your Petitioner's guilt by getting your Petitioner suspended, besides further evidencing his feeling on the subject by informing your Petitioner at the time of his suspension that he hoped to get evidence to convict him of a graver offence (than neglect of duty), meaning the offence of accepting bribes.
12.-Your Petitioner was charged with, and dismissed for, not discovering and reporting the gambling at 2, Wah Lane. Your Petitioner contends that he has been most unjustly convicted upon mere unfounded suspicion. In the first place, as to the duty of reporting. The central part of the city of Victoria is, for the purposes of the anti-gambling laws, divided into four sections. Your Petitioner was in charge of No. 1 section, 2, Wah Lane and 3, East Street are in another section. Beyoud certain patrol work throughout the town, irrespective of gambling districts, your Petitioner had no occasion to notice gambling houses in that neighbourhood; nor would he as Inspector of another section be a person to whom informers would be likely to report concerning this house.
13.-Suspicion attached to your Petitioner because the character | (Kwan) was found in a certain list in the possession of the gamblers with the figure 3 opposite to it, which the aforesaid Sham In said denoted that your Petitioner was in receipt of daily hush money to the extent of $3.
14. In respect of that list, your Petitioner submits in the first place that it clearly was not in the nature of legal evidence. Now, an Inspector placed amongst Chinese can hardly avoid becoming an object of suspiciou, if his superiors choose to so regard him, and your Petitioner more readily so than other