نا
Enclosure 2.
Translation of a
20333
REC:
REGE IS OCT 88
Petition from certain Chinese Shopkeepers, &c.
HONGKONG, 16th August, 1888.
A petition from the Chinese Community, Mer- chants and others, of Hongkong, praying that, as a favour, certain Police Constables may be re- primanded in order to preserve the peace of the neighbourhood.
Petitioners beg to state that, on the 16th of the 6th Moon, (24th July, 1888), Indian Constable SHEIK ALIM, and Chinese Constable CH'AN CH‘UN, both in uniform, together with Detective TSANG FAT, went into the YAT LUNG Piece Goods shop No. 3, Jervois Street and, under some pretext, committed an assault and created a disturbance there, and, after making a search, arrested one of the shopmen. If such presumption on authority is in any way condoned, it is certain that con- stables who are of bad character, will be em- boldened to follow the example now set, and as a result the annoyance they will cause will be unbearable.
LI KWONG-CHI, master of the shop in question, reported the case by petition to the Captain Su- perintendent of Police, but that official paid no attention to it, as if the constables concerned were not under his control. The constables complained of were subsequently tried by the Magistrate. From their own evidence, it would appear that the offence was one which they could be reason- ably suspected of being guilty of, and for which they could not escape the penalty.
Petitioners submit that if these constables suspected the shop in question of harbouring offenders, they ought to have reported the matter to the Authorities and applied for a warrant to enter the shop in order to make search and arrest; but they ought not, as they have done, without warrant, to have entered a shop and searched it, and to have taken any person to the Station. If, as it is alleged, no assault was com- mitted and no disturbance created when they entered the shop, how came it about that a large crowd collected round the door and stayed there looking on for about a quarter of an hour? The people in the crowd were eye witnesses of the search and the disturbance.
Now, in the petition of the Master of the shop, it is stated that all the 3 constables went to the shop together and created the disturbance, all thus being guilty of the same offence. Why, then were the two Chinese constables made witnesses and only the Indian constable made defendant? They must have been screened in some way in order to get them out of the trouble.
Petitioners, who are highly indignant at the outrageous conduct of these constables, pray that His Excellency the Governor will sift the inatter to the bottom, so that restrictions may be placed on these constables to prevent the mischief
24
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.