Page 363
36
with regard to these three men, I think one can only say that there is evidence to implicate Tung Cheong (A) in the commission of the murder, that there is some against the Captain of the Gunboat, though not so direct nor so strong, as having entered into a conspiracy to murder, while against the ex-employee of the Hongkong Police there is hardly any evidence at all. As regards the complicity of the Commander of the Canton City Guard, Li Ka Cheuk, the Hongkong Government think there is not sufficient evidence to convict, and there seems to me to be still less to produce against the deceased acting Viceroy.
Considering that the murdered man was believed by the Canton Government to be guilty of taking part in a plot to blow up the Governor's Yamen with dynamite, and that the Hongkong Police speak with confidence of his having been concerned in an abortive attempt to bring about a local rising at Huichou, it seems highly probable that even if the Canton Government consented to put these three men on their trial, they would require the strictest proof of their guilt. I notice that this opinion is expressed also by Sir Henry Blake in paragraph 5 of his Despatch of June 20th, 1899, to the Colonial Secretary, and he adds that it is not to be expected that the Chinese witnesses would dare to repeat in the presence of Chinese officials in the Courts of China, the evidence they have given in our Court at Hongkong. We might, it is true, demand permission for a British official to be present at the trial, but I am not sure that this would give sufficient confidence to the witnesses and encourage them to speak the truth fearlessly. In the case of an acquittal, however, it seems to me that we should have strengthened the belief of the sort of Chinese who hire themselves out to commit assassination that they may do it with impunity provided they take care to keep out of the reach of British Courts, and that they will be screened by the Provincial Government.
Page 363