be laid on them by the Chinese before an international
tribunal.
13. Prior to the 27th pril,1940, all efforts to
reach a compromise were unavalling, bocnuse the
Chinese proposals, whatever shape they took,
uid not make any concessions to the ritish; osition,
but merely amounted to a re-affination of the
Chinese claim. The were acceptance of the proposal
that there should be a garden does not dispose of the
question of jurisdiction and this is the question at
issue. On the 28th April,1948, however, the chinese
smbassy in London left åt the Foreign „ffice a
we orandum dated 27th April, 1948, containing proposals
which represent some concession to the view point of
Under there
H..G. The hexorandum vent-ins/proposals under which
he City of Kowloon would begose a Garden of
Denumbrance säministered by a Sritish and a Chinese
trustee, the latter having an office in the garden. The meme
+/suggested an exchange of notes, not to be published,
proviuing for punishment by the trustees of
infringements of rules and regulations for the
maintenance of onier in the guren and for trial of
in
civil and criminal cases, arising in the garen, the
八
courts of the locality in which the defend nt has his
domicile.
:
coy of the meux:andum is included at the
end of Faper § 20.(4). »lthough this proposal Day
it is bay
certain
no
received
means
that it has
he unqualified approval of the Chinese Government itself, and
contain the seeus of an acceptable compromise it is
desired to have the opinion of the law officers on the
points raised in the present case bacause, if l.. • ̈*
were in a position safely to offer recourse to the
interntional Court this would be so unpalatable to
the Chinese Government that it would probably induce
them to accept satisfactory comproniae much more
readily.