184
Chief Justice in the cases referred to in our said letter to you, we would have been so appointed.
As we pointed out in our said letter to you, we are very strongly of opinion (and we understand from the Chief Justice that Mr. Rees-Davies, the Attorney General, is also of the same opinion) that the Chief Justice's decisions in question are
incorrect.
**
We quite recognise that (apart from what is set out in
our said letter to you as to such decisions being more dicta and therefore not binding) the decisions in question must be
recognised, that is to say, that if the Hongkong Government are
satisfied that such decisions are not mere dicta (as apparently
from your letter to us of the 28th June last is the case) then
the Hongkong Government is bound to give effect to such
decisions, but we submit and strongly submit that not-
withstanding this, we are entitled to call your attention te
the doubt as to the correctness of the Chief Justice's deci-
sions, because thereby we are placed in a position which is
distinctly contrary to that in which we think we ought to be.
In short, what we would ask you to consider is not only the
opinion of the Attorney General as above set out, but also the
fact that, but for the decisions of the Chief Justice, we
should undoubtedly have been appointed Seliciters to the Chi-
and that nese Government in connection with extradition cases,
--
it is because of these decisions which to say the least are open to question that the Secretary of State (acting through the Government of Hongkong) has the power (which would other- wise vest in the Chinese Government) of appointing the Solici-
tor who shall conduct such cases.
-3-