CO882-(4-5) — Page 665

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PÉRMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

346

They carried the corpse away in a basket, saying they would reduce it to pieces 80 there should be no trace left. There were nine persons, clansmen and partners of petitioner, present, and they were bound up and wounded. Amongst the ruffians were the ruffians Wong Hei alias Mang Kung, Wong Mang Tsap and Wong Fung Lun of Sha Tau Ha Pin.

The case was reported to the military on the 1st August, and the officer personally made an investigation on the spot, and went with the nine men mentioned above to Sha Tau, where an accomplice was identified. The rest of the robbers ran away and con- cealed themselves.

Although there are soldiers in the place these robbers are bold enough to do what they please, and have no respect for the law. They intend to combine together and avenge themselves for the arrest of their accomplice (by the soliders) who was pointed out by the nine men. Hence the villagers are in alarm both day and night.

Petitioner prays

(1). That some method may be devised for protection to them.

(2). That the case may be investigated and the robbers severely punished. (3). That the place may be tranquilled.

(4). That petitioner's wrongs may be redressed.

He begs that some police may be sent to arrest the robbers and recover the corpse. As the names of the robbers have been posted up (formerly) for arrest, they are known to every neighbour. Besides these there are more than 100 other robbers in the village.

2.

Copy of Papers re a Murder at Wong Kong.

Hon. C.S.P. to Hon. COLONIAL Secretary.

HON. COLONIAL SECRETARY,

(1).

August 8, 1899.

Has any report reached you from the military authorities regarding a robbery and murder at Wong Kong on the 29th of July. I am informed that a Chinese B.A., of the name of Chong Wan Yeuk had his house broken into by an armed gang of men, who killed the B.A. and made away with his body.

One of my detectives heard of the case at Nam Tau on Sunday, and yesterday, making his way overland to Hong Kong, via Cheung Po camp, he was questioned by some of the officers there as to whether he had heard the people at Nam Tau talking of the case.

(2).

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADJutant-General,

CAN you give me any information regarding this case?

YOUR EXCELLENCY,

(3).

A. H. MAY, C.S.P.

August 9, 1899.

J. H. S. L.,

Colonial Secretary.

THIS paper has been sent to me by my C.S.O. from Hong Kong. I do not

Sheung Po, August 11, 1899. know who is the writer by the initials, but I do know that Wong Kong is not in the police district, and I cannot too strongly deprecate the present system adopted by the police of mixing themselves up in affairs outside their jurisdiction. I know that this is contrary to the wishes of Your Excellency, and I would ask you kindly to again notify your wishes, so that it may cease.

W. J. GASCOIGNE,

&c.,

&c., dc.

(4).

MAJOR-GENERAL Gascoigne,

THE minute to the Colonial Secretary is by the C.S.P. Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General is by the Colonial Secretary.

The inquiry of the August 12, 1899.

If such a murder

•

347

did take place in the territory occupied by us, it would, of the police should know of it. The perpetrators, or some of them, might be in the course, be important that Colony, and such an outrage would affect us materially, especially when we remember that the district now occupied by the troops may be added to the Colony any day, as I understand that the Chinese Government absolutely refuse to pay the indemnity de- manded. I shall be glad therefore if, in the event of any such outrage having taken place, you will request the Officer Commanding Troops in Sham Chun valley to inform

H. A. B.

me.

(5).

YOUR EXCELLENCY,

I WOULD point out that naturally I should report for Your Excellency's per-

Camp Sheung Po, August 13, 1899. sonal information any proven matter of interest This has been done in the past. regards this present reported murder, I am sending in an account of what is known on As a separate paper.

But I venture most respectfully to demur to Your Excellency's remarks as re- gards the procedure to be followed.

(1) Is Wong Kong a portion of the territory in occupation by Her Majesty's forces?

The Secretary of State's despatch ordered the seizure of Sham Chun. In order to properly, safeguard the garrison of Sham Chun it was necessary to keep complete control of the river. But Wong Kong is not on the river; is some miles distant from this camp, and in no way affects the safety of the troops stationed here.

(2) If Wong Kong is to be considered a portion of the occupied territory, where will the line be drawn?

(3) Is it wise, expedient, or, indeed, lawful for the troons in occupation to inter- fere in the Chinese civil administration, beyond exercising the necessary force to put down riotous assembly or outrage which might endanger their safety, or beyond assist- ing, at their request, the Chinese officials to maintain Chinese law and order.

(4) What legal right has British law to interfere in the civil administration of what is, according to International Law, the territory of a friendly Power?

I hold that, legally, until Her Majesty's Orders in Council are published by pro- clamation, the Civil Law of Great Britain has no locus standi, and, if put in force without such proclamation, would be in direct opposition to Internationl Law, and, as such, illegal.

(5). The only right which would appear to me to exist is that of might-as under- stood by martial law.

(6) Martial law, as governed by the Army Act, makes no provision for any exer- cise of power in taking over the control of the civil administration of a foreign Power where the safety of Her Majesty's forces is not endangered.

(7). If any malefactor against Chinese law escapes into Hong Kong from Chinese territory, how can the Hong Kong police legally act except at the written request of the Chinese authorities?

(8). Even were a murderer caught red-handed in the occupied territory, in what way can he be dealt with except by handing him over to the law of his country-in this case, China-always supposing that his offence does not affect the military in occu- pation?

The above questions appear to me to be of vital importance, and I have put them in detail in order that I might receive a ruling from Your Excellency on each point.

In conclusion I would point out that up to the present, acting, as I understood, on Your Excellency's own instructions, the occupation of this foreign territory has been carried out with a remarkable freedom from trouble or outrage, and the responsibility for the maintenance of order rests with me and me alone. But if it is admitted for a moment that the Civil Police should be allowed in any way to interfere, then I must respectfully repudiate any responsibility whatever; the matter would then become one for a Civil Administrator to act, and the military would cease to be responsible.

W. J. GASCOIGNE,

Major-General,

&c.,

&c..

&c.

608

I

X

¡