248
bowever, to be some danger that while attention is so strongly concentrated on the Yangts the importance of our interests in the South May be underestimated or over. looked. In this connection we would invite attention to the following extract from an excellent article on the Japan Mail:--
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND ality in Siam, having been duly registered at the consulate. Under these circum stances he was therefore subject to British any offence it was by the British courts jurisdiction alone; if he had committed that he should have been tried and, if found guilty, sentenced. We do not see how the British Government could legally divest itself of its responsibility in regard to Mr. LILLIE and gandon him to the Siamese authorities for deportation. they can abandon fa British subject for If deportation they might equally well allow him to be imprisoned or executed by the native authorities, a course which could under no circunstances be tolerated. It would appear, therefore, that the British Government have blundered no less than the Siamese.
She France) ks China to guarantee that no part of the rovinces of Kwangtung, Kwangsi, and Yunpan shall be ceded to a Foreign Power. What does that mean? Con- sidered cursorily, it appears to be analogous to England's recently obtained guarantee that no part of the Yangtze Valley be alienated. But in truth the two countions are radically differ ent. England's object is to secure the free navigation of China's gas waterway, which, with its tributaries, affords access to some six- teen provinces. The closing of the Yangtsze to British vessels would involve the ruin of British trade with China, and England is de- termined that it shall be kept open to the ships of all nations and that no foreign Power shall acquire a position frem which ite naviga- tion could be interrupted, or the freedom of trade on its waters hampered A. guarantee with regard to the three provinces of Kwau tung, Kwangsi, and Yaanan caiyot be con. strued in any similar sense. It is plainly an attempt to establish a "sphere of influence with a view to future contingencies In short, the recent proceedings of Russia and France are obviously directed to the dismemberment of the Chinese empire; Russia taking Man churia, with, perhaps, the vast roject of gradual extension thence in westerly and northerly directions until all the proving north of the Yellow River, together th Mongolia, are absorbed; France appropflat- ing the three southeru provinces and England being left to work out her destiny in Central China along the Yangtze Valley, sandwiched between Russia and France. If is a stupendous programme, but the demands formulated from St. Petersborg an Paris are unmistakable pointers. England, Jowever, already possesses an island lying off ho con of Kwangtung, where she has created the Liver pool of the East. She also possess a portion of the mainland of Kwangtaug and has been for some time openly thinking f asking for more. She bas, further, large tradal operations with Canton, and it was through her enterprise that the West River was opened, which runs through two of the very provinces included in the French demand. It must be presumed that England intends to keep the West River open to the trade of the world just as she intends to keep the Yangtsze open. The establishment of French control in Kwagtung and Kwangsi would mean the rain of Hongkong and the exclusion of British commerce from Canton and the whole of the ragins watered by the West River. That would scarcely be tolerable.
to
The blunder of the Siamese is more in the nature of an indiscretion than of an illegality, for if Mr. LILLIE was not entitled to foreign protection the Siamese Govern- men would be within its rights in expell inghim. The indiscretion seems to have been a matter of temper. Mr. LILLIE's Aritings, which appeared to be intended stir up difficulties between France and Siam and to incite the French nation to aggressive action against Siam, were no doubt exasperating, but it would have been better either to have treated them with contempt or to have taken con- stitutional action against the writer in the courts of his own nationality. Newspapers have within recent years had to be proceeded against both in Egypt and India for incen- diary or seditious writings, and the same course might have been adopted in Sinun. If the law did not quite meet the made it do so. case a short order would readily have authorises the Minister to make regulations The Order in Council
British subjects and Siamese subjects and for maintaining friendly relations between "authorities," and a regulation could be made under that authority which would constitute abusive and insulting writings of and concerning the King and Government of Siam a punishable offence. This might stem like opening the door to a press censorship, but, highly as we appreciate liberty of speech and writing, we cannot but recognise that in a country like Siam, where foreigners are not subject to the law of the land, there may be especial reasons why the liberty of the press should not be allowed to degederate into licence, or the cloak of Her Majesty's protection be made use of for the purpose of reviling a friendly sovereign or promoting schemes against the integrity of his domaions. As the matter stands, how- ever, Mr. LLE seems to have been dealt with illegally, and although his conduct has not been such as to win for him much sympathy, he is entitled to a fair trial himself.
EXPULSION OF A BRITISH JOURNALIST FROM SIAM. The expulsion of British journalist from Siam has naturally excited great interest at Bangkok, and the subject is discussed at length in the journal affected and the other local papers. Mr. LILLIE has declared that he will not leave the country voluntarily
and tb be allowed to defend and presumably he will therefore be placed
By proceeding against him by force upon a steaner leaving for Singa- as they have the Siamese Government pore or other British port. He has further will, to a large portion of the public, declared his intention of taking legal pro- appear to have acted tyrannically, and will ceedings in the home courts against the also attract attention to the writings com- British Ministerin Siam. Meantime his news-plained of and give them fictitious paper, the Siam Free Press, was advertised weight and importance. Their action will, to be sold by auction on the 16th inst. The moreover, in all probability prove futile to Siamese Government has no doubt received attain the immediate end aimed at, namely, extreme provocon from Mr. LILLIE, but the cessation of such writing, for with the the course its taken in expelling him ap- powers believed to be behind the Siam Fres pears to be a blunder. The adoption of Fress it is to be presumed that the paper that course was only rendered possible will continue to be published, though nomi- by the withdrawal of British protec-nally under a different editorship and that tion from Mr. LILLIE, and the legality it will still pursue an anti-Siamese campaign. of the withdrawal is doubtful. Mr. LILLIE not only a British subject, but has also, it is stated, complied with the form necessary to establish his nation-
*
home and retires on a pension. He leas in The Hon. H. E. Wodehouse has been infalided the Empress of China où Wednesday next."
[April 2, 1898. SUPREME COURT.
28th March.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION, BEFORE SIR JOHN CARRINGTON (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND MR. JUSTICE WISE (PURNE JUDGE).
HOWARD AND ANOTHER V. ROBINSON, The hearing of the case Howard and another January 13th, was resumed. v. Robinson, which was before the Coart on The plaintiff's
were Thomas Howard and Matthew John Denman Stephens, the defendant being Sir of the colony. The claim was for a writ of William Robinson, in bis capacity as Governor maudamus, and the proceedings were taken under the provisions of section 85 of the coia, A petition had been tiled by the plaintiffs and an answer filed by the defendant, and his Lordship, issues arising between the parties on the pleadings the Chief Justice, in Chambers, had settled the and he had directed that the first two of these issues, which involve the settlement of important questions of law, should be disposed of first, and at the suggestion of the plaintifs, with the the matter should be tried before their Lord- consent of the learned Attorney-General, that ships sitting as a full court. The questions of law wore (1) Assuming that the property or business of the plaintiffs has suffered depre- ciation or been injuriously affected by reason of the works authorized by the Praya Reclama-
and assess the amount of such depreciation or tion Ordinance, 1889, does the said Ordinance throw any duty on the defendent to inquire into injuries affecting thema (2) 1 such duty is thrown on the defendant, is it one which the Court, having regard to the provisions of said Ordinance, can properly enforce the performance of by a writ of mandamus P
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs. Deacon and Hastings) appeared for
II. L. Dennys, Crown Solicitor) for the defen. Hon, W. M. Goodman (instructed by Mr. the plaintiffs, and the Attorney-General, the
dant
The Attorney-Genoral said that since the last date of the arguing in this case, the argument wi h regard to the point of law on one of the issues raised in the action, the defendant had ruary, and from that time ceased to be Governor, left the colony. and it became impossible for him, even if a man damus had been issued, to comply with the desire of the plaintiffs that he should assess the damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs. If those were issues which arose only in the action, it seemed to him that the object of the action bad come to an end. The remedy sought in the action could not be giren with any sort of reason, because it would be im possible for the defendant to carry out the prayer of the position, and there was an element in the case which could not be lost sight of namely, the exercise of the discretion of the Governor for the time being. It might be the name of the Governor for the tins being, said why not amend the petition by putting in and suggestions of that sort had been made by letter but he denied that this could be done.
He left on the 1st Feb.
Mr. Francis, interrupting, said he objected to any evidence being put before the Court except by affidavit. He had simply come there to continue the argument on the issue of law. He had not had notice of any application. If the Attorney-General had any application to make as to the dismissal of the suit it should be by notice. As he had said before, he was there simply to continue the argument on the issue of law set down for disenssion before the Court and for no other purpose
The Attorney-General said he mentioned to the Crown Solicitor before coming to tile an affidavit as to the absence of Sir the Court that it might be necessary to William Robinson, but it seemed to him to be one of those facts of which the Court had taken notice. The fact that Sir William
Robinson had ceased to be Governor of the colony was a public fact, seeing that it had been gazetted, and it seemed to him to be somewhat superfluons to make such an affidavit, but if one were required he suggested that he should make his application and his remarks might be
April 2, 1899.] taen subject to an affidavit being made if required. But be submitted that the fact that Sir William Robinsou had left the colony and that Major-General Black was now Acting Governor was a fact of which the Court was voguisant.
Mr. Francis-1 object to the question being gone into at all, without previons netice.
The Chief Justice---He is entitled to argue whether he can go into it.
Mr. Francis-I understand he is arguing it on its merits.
The Attorney-General said it would be very inconvenient for the Court to continue to argue su issue of law in an action seeing that since the argument on that issue of law was raised a matter of public notoriety had occurred and a matter of which he submitted the Court should take judicial notice, namely, that the defendant was no longer Governor of the colony. The fact of such an event having occurred since the argument was commenced rendered the further procedure of the action not only aseless but clearly undesirable and a pare waste of time. It seemed to him that his Lordsbip would scarcely desire to hear him further of one of the issues named in the action. It did not follow that because one Governor refused to do a thing anothor would refuse to do it.
The Chief Justice-You cannot decide a question of this kind off-hand; it will have to be argued properly.
to
contiune
|
275
249
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. The point takon by the Attorney-General was arise, and they began to disturb themselves in that the suit was nullified and shonid be an action which had been lying asleep for over dismissed. They thought that that was a 20 months. But in order to explain the remarks matter for argument. The Attorney-General he might have to address to his Lordship in was entitled to raise the point, but it should be reference to his motion it would be wall to refer argned. Therefore they thought that if the briefly to a part of the pleadings in the Attorney-General wished to insist on
that case. The writ was dated 21st February, point notice should be given to the other side 1896, and was between Thomas Howard and that the point was to be raised, and it could be Matthew John Denman Stephens and Sir argued out on Tuesday or Wednesday. He William Robinson. Plaintiff's claimed a writ of thought the Attorney-General should also put mandamus demanding that the defendant should evidence before the Court that Sir William proceed under section 7, Ordinance 16, 1889, Robinson had left the colony or had ceased to sub-section 6, to enquire into and assess the be Governor. That evidence could be given by damages suffered by the plaintiff's as the owners the production of a proclamation to that effect of certain land and the godown standing thereon or by affidavit.
in respect of depreciation in value of such land, defondant Laving, although requested so to do, refused to proveed nuder the section in question, and therefore the plaintiffs had no other remedy. This was a claim in which the only remedy was not a money compensation bat a writ of mamlamus.
The Attorney-General said he did not know whether his Lordship would allow him to read the correspondence which had taken place between the parties subject to it being placed on affidavit.
The Chief Justice- You must use your own discretion about a thing of that kind.
Mr. Francis-I would rather it was put in by affidavit and that I may have the opportunity of answering it by affidavit.
The Chief Justice-What is the point on the correspondence P
The Chief Justice said that before the Attorney-General went farther they would like to know from Mr. Francis whether he felt in a position to argue against the making of an order on the motion filed on behalf of the defen- daut. It Mr. Francis felt he could argue that
The Attorney-General-In the correspond-point successfully of course they would let the ence we said we should take this point.
argument go on. If he did not so feel then The Chief Justice-Whatis the use of putting they proposed to take both motions together, it in now when the Cout has ruled there mast one being the corollary of the other. be regular notice?
Mr. Francis said that as long as his Lord- After a little further argument the Courtship left him at liberty to argue ou bath mo- adjourned.
tions he could have no possible objection to their being argued or taken together.
30th March.
Sir William Robinson having left the colony ou 1st Febuary last, and having ceased to be Governor of the colony, each side gave notice of motion to amend, the notices being as foliow :-
The Chief Justice-I think it would be more convenient for the two to be argued together.
The Attorney-General said that what was asked for in the pleadings was the ordinary kind of compensation which would follow after the Reclamation Works had come in front of plaintiffs' godown. He did not think there was any dispute on that question. Certainly said it would not take into consideration and at the present time the Government had usrOP fairly and rightly, oren if only morally bound, decide as to any damage which might have oc- curred to Mr. Howard's premises in consequence of the Reclamation Works.
Mr. Francis, referring to some correspondence which had passed, and which the Attorney- General had mentioned, said that correspond- ence between the solicitors or between the parties with reference to any particular matter could never be a proper substitute for the ordin- ary notice of such matters as would be brought before the court. Such questions might or might not have been within the consideration of the parties. He had not thought it advisable under existing circumstances to make any application for leave to amend. He was waiting to see what i On behalf of the defendant :-→ Take notice steps the Attorney-General, representing Sir that this Court will be moved by the Attorney William Robinson AN the Governor of General on behalf of the above-named Sir the colony, proposed
to
take,
whether William Robinson on Wednesday, the 30th he proposed
the argument day of March, 1898, at 10.30 a.10., or as soon or make any application to the Court. If he after as counsel can be heard, to give leave to had had notice of any application to the Court introduce into the answer in this suit, by he should have filed a counter notice according way of amendment, the fact that from the to the nature of that application. Therefore it first day of February, 1898, the defendant, Sir the Attorney-General desired the Court to
William Robinson, ceased to Governor of this take any action which would interfere with colony, and to stay the further hearing of the the ordinary progress of the case he ought arguments on the issues already sertled nutil to have given proper notice. That would have
the question whether the Court could properly given him the opportunity of either answering grant a mandamus directing the defendant
Ho his affidavit or of filing a counter notice.
after he has ceased to be Governor of Hong-deny it. What the Government's intentions thought he was entitled to assume, seeing that kong to do an act which can only be done by the Attorney-General had not given notice of the Governor of such colony is decided, or until any such application, that he was coming there further order." to continue the argument which was adjourned. He also wished to call attention to the fact that the adjournment of these proceedings was entirely the act of the Court. It was in cou. sequence of the press of business that the argament could not go 011 on the 16th January,
The Chief Justice said the fact of this ques> tion having arisen at all must lio on the shoul ders of the plaintiffs. The action commenced two years ago or more, and it was only just before Sir William Robinson left the colouy that plaintiffs brought it into court.
On behalf of the plaintiffs:-"Take notice that in the event of this honourable Court making any order on the notice of motion filed herein on the 28th inst, on the part of the above namned defendant, this Court will be mored by John Joseph Francis, Q.C., on behalf of the above named plaintiffs, on Wednesday, the 30th day of March, 1898, at 10.30 o'clock a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for leave to amend the writ of summons and pleadings herein by substituting for the name of the defendant, Sir William Robinson, G.C.M.G.. or for any other named defendant, the words Major General Wilsone Black, C.B. the officer ad- ministering the Government of Hongkong,' or the words the Governor for 'he time being of the colony of Hongkong us this Court shall think fit."
Mr. Francis-I submit that the Attorney. General should not be allowed to make a state- ment as to a question of fact which will neces- sitate argument and contradiction on my part.
The Attorney-General-You cannot deny my statement.
Mr. Francis-I cau perfectly and thoroughly
are is not the question.
The Attorney-General said he was pointing out that the plaintiff's in their pleadings stated that the Reclamation Works had come within a certain distance of their place, and that there had been some silting caused by the works having come too near. The petition required that the defendant should proceed to enquire into and investigate the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiffs and to award com- pensation," and stated that the defendant bas refused und still refuses to perform his duties and to investigate and enquire, and award." The prayer was that the defondant by writ of mandamus should be compelled to enquire into and assess damages suffered by the plaintiffs. Before a mandamus was granted the person applying for it must have made a specifie dewaad upon the person in respect of whom th mandamus was asked for and that person must have refused to comply with such demand, that person having the option of refusing or doing that which was required of him. This difficulty substitution of a new name that of the Acting Governor-in regard to the writ of mandamus. The Acting Governor might say each Governor be petition had the right to art as he thought fit in the was filed on the 9th of March, 1896. There exercise of his discretion, and that his discretion was no delay on the part of the Governor in might differ from that of another Governor. replying, the answer being filed on the 24th of There had been no application to the Acting March, 1896. More the one year and eight Governor, and he thought it would be rather a months--during which Sir William Robinson hard thing to insert the name of a gentleman without asking by your leave" or anything. was Governor of the colony elapsed before, on the 1st of December, 1897, the defendants when all he had to do with the matter was that he was discharging the duties which Hor thought fit to issue a judge's summons to as- certain and determine the issues. The fact of Majesty hail required line to discharge, that of the watter was that when it was known that Sir Acting Governor for a certain period. It William Robinson was about to leave the colony, would be a very hard thing if he were to find it seemed to strike plaintiff's that difficulties might himself suddenly engaged in litigation and
Mr. Francis said he was simply calling atten tion to the fact that the case was down for hearing on January 24th and the court could not take it. Continuing, he said the case was against Sir William either in his individual capacity or in his corporate capacity as Gover- Aor, and if it were against him in his quasi motion, submitted au affidavit filed by Mr. right arise if his learned friend asked the corporate capacity as Governor his presence or absence could not make any possible difference. But the point at present was, were plaintiffs entitled to notice of any application which the Attorney-General proposed making, and he submitted that they were.
After a little further argument, the Chief Justion and the Paise Judge consulted for a
few moments.
The Chief Justice then said they wore both agreed with Mr. Francis that the question to be argued was the question of law raised in these issues. They both thought that the point raised by the Attorney-General shenld not be raised without fair notice being given to the other side, so that the other sida might have been prepared to meet it in argument.
The Attorney-General, in support of his Dennys, the Crown Solicitor, and one filed by Mr. Deacon, the solicitor for the plaintiffs. Continuing, he said that this suit was begun on the 21st of February, 1896.