- 12 -
Paper, Nu.2.
Conve tion, Rin Sajočty's Govurumait agreed, subject always to arrangements for the military defence of Fong Pong,
it the Chinsee officials mi ht rumai: It ia suggested that the provision should be read in the light of the com.itions then prevailing a d or the overriding purpose of the Convention, namely the military requirements for the defence of Mong Song.
29. ven assuming that the Chinese contention as to the interpretation of jaragraph 2 of the Convection is correct, it may be contended that the Chinese have lost their claim to jurisdiction as a result of the assumption of juris- uiction by the Fong ong authorities in 1899, followed by
overiant
Over 30 years of acqui:coonce by the Chinese (1900 1933). 'This acquioscence followed, after one more ineffective approach to Mr. cott, H.B. Consul General, in January, 1900, the categorical notua to the Whinese Government of 2 th Bay and 24th Gatobur, 1699, in which it was atstudi It is possible for Hur Bajesty's Governm ment to allos resumtion of jurisdiction by the hinese authorities likørloon ity,
30. Another a stronger argument that may be made in favour of the United Kingdon case is that the continued exercise by hinese officials of jurisdiction in Lowloon 1s i consistent with the military requirements for the is defence of lung Hon₤. The facts appear to show that in 1896/19 0 the presence of the thinese authorities in
owloon was ooktrary to the military requirements of Hong *ong•
The Thin,ne constituted e riotous lement wt directly threatened the security of the imediate neigh- bourhood in the colony. In 1914, the ervice leport: wero of the opi ion that the resumption of jurisdiction by the Chinese would be contrary to the cofenoe ruquire- ments of Yong Zong The military implications of per- mitting the Chinese to exoraise jurisdiction in ho#leon ionloon City have recently been considerou by the British,efence Coordination Onnittue, far ast, in so juustionwith the
oo Fong Kong Local
onemittee, and the co:clusion was reached thet it would be absolutely inconsistent with military require ants to sodsdg to the Chinese request. 7 is conclusion is endorsed by the inistry of
A copy of the Brition efa os Coordination Committee Par \ast's tologram, datod 9th April, 1947, and of the letter fra the inister or ofance to the iolator of
for Colonial Affairs, dated 5th May, 1948, are attached.
31
it ia submitted, therefore, that the Treaty makea the exercise of Minese jurisŭiction subordinate to the defence requirements of ong LODE Nia · ajesty'a Goverment mast be the judges of those requirements. Both in 1899 sid on every other occasion than the question wea raised the British militery authorities havs buen col- siste..tly or the opinion that Chiusae jurisdiction is inconsistent with thood ruqui nente ma that is their view at the present time. it say also be argued on the literal interpretation of the Treaty that if once the Bikese jurisdiction is validly interrupted by military requirements there is no right to resume it.
/32......