some of the milder alterations of the existing arrangements, which are suggested in the Consul's letter, may be favourably considered.
These are:
(1) That neither the accused nor the Chinese Govt be represented by Lawyers at the preliminary investigation.
(2) That the Registrar-General should, as being closely acquainted with Chinese thought and character, sit as Assessor in Rendition cases.
With both these proposals the Hongkong Govt has refused, and I think, rightly refused to entertain.
(3) That on receipt of a Telegram from the Consul, any person whose extradition is to be demanded should be arrested.
At present, in such cases the Govt may, under Section 4 of Ordinance No. 5 of 1889, require a Magistrate to issue a Warrant for the alleged criminal's arrest.
The understanding in such cases is that if the accused is found not guilty, reparation for unjust imprisonment and all expenses shall be borne by the Chinese Govt.
(4) This proposal, which the Attorney-General deals with in his report, deals with the question of banishment rather than that of extradition.
The proposal is that the Govt should be informed in case of the banishment of any person of notoriously bad character from the Colony.
If we were not dealing with China, it would be only fair to grant the request, but I believe that if the Chinese officials thought there were bad men in Hongkong they would send them back to China without a request.
This point should not be conceded.
(5) That any Chinese Resident in Hongkong should be compelled to give evidence in China if required to do so.
The Attorney-General objects to this proposal entirely. If Witnesses fare little better than the Accused, and are liable to torture, the proposal cannot be entertained.
(6) The last proposal is that depositions taken in China be accepted as evidence in Hongkong.
some of the milder alterations of the existing
may be
be which are
may
Cau
suggested in the foural's letter
be favourable considered.
These are:
(1) That neither the accused nor the Chines gout be represented by Lauzers at the preliminary investigation.
2) That the Registrar. Geveral should, as being Clowly acquainted with Chinese thright and character sit as
Queur in
Rendition
cased.
with both these proposals the Ploughing govt has
refused
and I think, rightly refused to entertain
at Canton
A
3) That on receipt of a Telegram from the Conceal, an
person whose extradition is to be demanded should
be arrested.
at present
a
the In such casid the goor may, under Section y of Ordinance of 1889 require
magistrale to lime Warrant for the alleged friminal's arrest.
The understanding in such cases is that
the
Mau
if
arrected is found not guilty reparation for unjust imprisonment and all expense shall be bome by the Chicare Govt.
as
4) This propal
the attorney. General foriti out in his report deals with the question of banishment rather than that of extradition
496
The propose is that the Viurg should be
of the banishment of any
informed in case
notoriously bad character from the Colony.'
we
were not dealing with China it
the request,
would be only fair to grant
but I believe that if the Chinese officials
thought there men
China they
without
would
a do.
? This point should
5. That
CA
likely to prove unruly in
made
ausy
with them
not be
conceded.
Chinese Resident in Hongking should
be comfitted
to
give
evidence in China if
requins to do so
The Attorney. General bowls out this proposal entirety. If Wituaises fare little better than the
Accund
propoval
and
are liable to losture the
cannot be entertained.
6. The last proforal is that depositions taken in China be accepted as widence in Hongkong"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.