Therefore, it may be thought that, quite apart
from any jurisdiction that may have been assumed
by the Hong Kong Government to satisfy their
military requirements, the Convention left a
residue of jurisdiction over Kowloon City which,
by virtue of the lease of territory, passed to the
Hong Kong Government.
29.
Even assuming 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 aasumption of jurisdiction by the Hong Kong authorities in 1899, followed by
over 30 years of acquiescence by the Chinese
Government. In this .connection it may be
pertinent to recall the terms of the notes to
the Chinese Governmen of 30th May and 24th
October, 1899, in which it was stated categorically: "It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government
to allow resumption of jurisdiction by the
Chinese authorities in Kowloon City".
30. Another and stronger argument that may e made in favour of the United Kingdom case is that the continued exercise by Chinese officials of jurisdiction in Kowloon is inconsistent with the military requirements for the defence of Hong Kong. The facts appear to show that in 1898/ 1900 the presence of the Chinese authorities in Kowloon was 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. In 1934, the Service Departments were of the opinion that the resumption of jurisdiction by the Chinese would be contrary to the defence
requirements/
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN.