F
56
4.
I shall be glad if you will be good enough to
make this fact as clear as possible to the Canton authorities
and tell them that the long Zong Jovernment has been
endeavouring for sometime, and is still actively endeavouring,
to devise some means whereby extradition from this Colony to
China may be resumed. It should also be impressed upon them
that in England and in ritish Colonies the executive has not
the same freedom of action as it has in some foreign countries,
of which China is an extreme example. I and my officers are
always subject to the law of the Colony, and the law is
sometimes difficult to change.
5.
The present Chinese official mind, no doubt,
assumes Lau Lun's guilt without waiting to hear the other side,
and there is a large body of evidence on the other side.
But, assuming this guilt, it is quite wrong to cœwider the matter of bail in this case as if the proceedings would have resulted in a trial and, as an inevitable consequence, in
execution. Lau Lun was not a prisoner charged with murder,
but was detained at the instance, not of the Canton Goverment,
but of civilian complainants in Hong Kong under a warrant
issued in pursuance of section 4 of the Deportation ordinance,
No. 25 of 1917. It was not a question whether Lau Lun would
"turn up for trial and execution", but whether the bail would
be likely to secure his attendance in case it should be decided
to expel him from the colony, for a number of years or for life,
to a destination to be chosen by himself, from which he would
be free to go anywhere excet back to liong Kong•
6.
In view of the above considerations it would be
difficult to speak with moderation of the repetition of the old
and insincere excuse for the remissness of the chinese
authorities in dealing with Bias Bay.
7./