aragraph 29 is deleted and the subsequent paragraphsu
re-numbered accordingly.
29.
Even as uming that the Chinese contention as to
the interpretation of paragraph 2 of the Convention
is correct, it may be contended that the Chinese have
lost their claim to jurisdiction as a result of the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Hong kong authorities
in 1899, followed by over 30 years of acquiescence by
the Chinese Government (1900 - 1933). This
acquiescence followed, after one more ineffective
Britis H.Mondale Senerals approach to r. scott in January 1960, the
categorical notes to the Chinese Government of 3.th
kay and 24th Latuber, 1899, in which it was stated :
"It is impossible for Her Lajesty's Covernment to allow
resumption of jurisdiction by the Chinese authorities
in Kowloon City."
30.
•
another and stronger arg ment that may be made
in favour of the United Kin ̧dom case is that the
continued exercise by Chinese officials of jurisdiction
in Lowloon ia inconsistent with the idlitarý requirements
for the defence of liong Kong. The facts appear to
show that in 1898/1900 the presence of the Chinese
authorities in Kowloon vas contrary to the military
requirements of Hong Kong. The chinese constituted
a riotous element which directly threatened the
security of the immediate neighbourhood in the colony.
Paper D, No. 2
Flof A
Last sentence of para. 30:
The military implications of permitting the Chinese to exercise jurisdiction in Kowloon City have recently been considered by the British Defence Coordination Committee, Far East in conjunction with the Hong Kong Local Defence Committee, and the conclusion was reached that it would be absolutely inconsistent with military requirements to accede to the Chinese request. This conclusion is endorsed by the Ministry of Defence. A copy of the British Defence Coordination Committee Far East's telegram, dated 29th April, 1948, is attached.
military requirements
31.
It is submitted, therefore, that the raty
makus. • • •