163
On the following day Mr.Hazeland informed Mr.Harston that the Chief Justice had referred him to a previous decision of the Chief Justice upon the subject and that in consequence Mr.Hazeland could not recognise the "locus standi" of Mr.Har- ston as the representative of the Chinese Government.
In consequence of Mr.Hazeland's attitude we, on the 16th June last, addressed the Colonial Secretary, Hongkong, in the terms of the letter under that date of which a copy is sent herewith.
To the last mentioned letter we received a reply from the Colonial Secretary of Hongkong under date the 28th June last and herewith send you a copy of such reply.
Subsequent to the reply in question Mr.Harston had an interview with the Assistant Colonial Secretary (Mr.Clementi) whereat Mr.Harston intimated that (in the event of the Hongkong
Government consenting thereto) he thought the Chief Justice
would be prepared to intimate that he saw no objection to the
appointment of Mr.Harston by the Hongkong Government as
Assistant Crown Solicitor for the purpose of representing the
Hongkong Government and conducting at the Police Court in
Hongkong all Extradition Cases applied for by the Chinese
Government and it was arranged that Mr.Harston should interview
the Chief Justice upon the subject.
A m
Mr.Harston accordingly did so with the result that the
Chief Justice stated that he would have no objection to the
appointment of Mr.Harston by the Hongkong Government as above mentioned, but that he considered such appointment should be limited to the Police Court and should not apply to the
Supreme Court.
On the 29th June last Mr.Harston wrote to Mr.Clementi as Assistant Colonial Secretary informing him of what had transpired at Mr.Harston's interview with the Chief Justice above referred to; a copy of that letter is sent herewith.
-2-