584
rawog sad ant vot Jançð sneiquƐ n'yteotako imatini siN #toej dưa dalt keď to favomat Kid TAŠTO OỬ asažo mladoso al to disg eno mort bas,mosig nedto misimo oð ætlið HOT? Gremios bigmi „Ladzi to nenogzug add rol predions of an ESD doua duo gałęrzas to saogug sốt zeƐ .nebtadrogab baa yas lo rojaam add exloper að samog sad izveo edt LaTomT -Paid L BE no besop ai aort ot guoon w in the #xozroq dove gidazard of yzarronsa nomidomon si sľ
Tawog on rad grotzack to tomie vel adt dui „gnofgroll Ja -akaq na madi ufað oð gide yna to zajaam adi evłuper að
oni në qug uždé qu III% 63 sonogong IIId edt mvig of of men my dog prinsessa máéo IIA „exoboookĮ ,noite Merut agierek edi yd ħna flaqueð xi nabrũ sốt yế
am al mobтð e53 de kêr raber ‚0981
•
•
„Istensi yarrzoJJā
Copy. No. 197/1921.
Sir.
Enclosure
488
2.
Government House,
Hongkong,
19th January, 1922.
With reference to your telegram of the 30th November, 1921, and subsequent correspondence, I have the honour to ask for your assistance in the interpretation of the various enact- ments relating to the transhipment at Hongkong of British sub- jects deported from Shanghai. The enactments in question will
be more familiar to the British authorities in China than to
this for ermment, and it may be that the difficulŝties referred
to below have already been considered and solved. It is import- ant that the procedure should be clear because at any time some
deportes may be prepared to contest the validity of acts done
or to be done in this Colony in connection with his deportation
2. The first difficulty in the case of Graham Bushby
was that while the warrant of the Judge purported to require the master of the 5.3. "Eastern" to convey Bushby in sustody to
Australia, it does not very clearly appear from Article 83(7)
and (8) of the China Order in Council, 1904, that there is any power to require a master to receive and detain a deportee,
though it is clear that the Court on empower him to do so.
3. Even assuming that the above Article enables the
Court to require a master to accept a deportes, if the ship is bound to the place of deportation, it does not filow that the Court has the same power in the case of a ship which is not bound to the place of deportation, or in the case of a ship which though bound to the place of deportation does not sail
from Shanghai.
4. Further, it does not seem quite clear that the Court can even empower the master of a ship sailing from
Hongkong
His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General,
SHANGHAI.