CO537-3711 — Page 42

Paper D, No.2

attached.

iaragraph 29 is deleted and the subsequent paragraphs

re-numbered accordingly.

29. siven as uning that the Chinese contention as to

the interpretation of paragraph 2 of the Convention

is correct, it may be contended that the chinese heve

Lost their claim to jurisdiction as a result of the

assumption of jurisdiction by the Hong tong authorities

in 1899, followed by over 30 years of acquiescence by

the Chinese Government (1900 1933). This

acquiescence followed, after one more ineffective

Brites (H.MPonant Seneraly approach to Mr.otmek Joottin January 1900, the

categorical notes to the Chinese Government of 3.th

-ay ani 24th Catober, 1899, in which it was stated :

"It is impossible for Her Lajesty's Coverment to allow

resumtion of jurisdiction by the Chinese authorities

in rowloon City."

30. another and stronger arg ment that way be made

1

in favour of the nited Kindow case is that the

continued exercise by Chinese officials of jurisdiction

in owloon is inconsistent with the nilitarý requirements

for the defence of liong Kong. The facts appear to

show that in 1998/1500 the presence of the Chinese

authorities in rowloon was contrary to the military

requirements of Hong rang• The Chinese constituted

a riotous clement which directly threatened the

security of the immediate neighbourhood in the colony.

In 1934, the service opartments were of the opinion

that the resuz tion of jurisdiction by the Chinese

would be contrary to the defence requirements of Hong

viteurs Minister of Defence co curs in the new

Song• the

of british Defence Coordination Committee at singapore,

expressed in a telegram dated 25th aprii,1948, that to

uccede to the Chinese request for resution of

jurisdiction would be absolutely inconsistent with

military requirements,

31.

It is submitted, therefore, that the raty

wakes....