77
purposes of the Ordinance. That is the position the
proposed amending Ordinance would establish, and the matter
would then be perfectly simple. That Ordim.nce might have
been law now but for the opposition of the Legation.
8. It may be noted here that when the status of the
Canton Government was in question in the case of Re Chung
Sau Nam (1914) 9.H.K.L.R.26, the Consul General at Canton
give evidence before the Full Court that he "absolutely
recognised the Provincial Government of Kwong Tung". There
was other evidence on the point also.
9. The Government of Hong Kong is just as anxious as
the Consul General that extradition to Canton should be
resumed, and it is prepared to take steps to that end in
spite of the danger, which we have suffered from in the past,
that fictitious criminal charges my be made against
political opponents, and in spite of the difficulty of enforcing the undertaking which is to be given under section
4(5) of the Ordinance. That is why the Governor has again
raised the question of the proposed amending Ordin nce. The difficulty about adopting the suggestion in paragraph 6 of
the Consul General's letter, i.e., that we should put the
Ordinence in motion in the cases mentioned in the hope that
the legal difficulty might be avoided or evaded, is the difficulty of seeing what certificate the Governor could properly give to satisfy the courts. He would have to consult with the Minister on this point. I doubt if it would be enough for him to state in his order to the magistrate that a requisition had been made to him by "X an officer of the Chinese Government". It is conceivable that neither the
fugitive criminal nor the magistrate might raise the point, but if it were raised, as it is almost certain to be, I
think