(c)
having as its real object the punishment of a
collaborator but constituted the culminating point of
a series of blackmailing attempts to obtain control of
the Wah Kiu Yat Po and of its policy.
A
That in any event Your Petitioner's case did not come
within the true meaning and spirit of the Chinese
Collaborators (Surrender) Ordinance and the argument
advanced of publication in Canton through a distribu-
tion of rice was a specious one introduced to circumvent
1
the true spirit of the Ordinance, which was meant and
intended to cover cases of collaborators who had done
and committed treasonable acts in China and had after
the surrender fled to Hong Kong for refuge.
(a) That surrender under the said Ordinance was tantamount
to infringement of Section 4 (1) of the Chinese
Extradition Ordinance, No.7 of 1889 reading as follows :-
" a fugitive oriminal shall not be surrendered if the
A
offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is
one of a political character or if he proves, to the
" satisfaction of the magistrate, or of a judge if brought
before the court on a writ of habeas corpus, or of the
" Governor that the requisition for his surrender has in
" fact been made with a view to try to punish him for an
* offence of a political character or for an offence which
" is not an extradition crime."
The true basis of the application for surrender being Your
Petitioner's refusal to play party politics and insistance upon
a free aditorial policy.
(e)
That in any event, Your Petitioner as a British subject is
not a Chinese national within the meaning of the definition set
out in the Ordinance and is not subject to the provisions of the
said Ordinance.
41. Your Petitioner further respectfully suggests, apart from
22.
rud.