C.
This Document is the Property of Her Britannic Majesty's Government...
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1.
C.U.
21537 [August 3
SECTION 15 AUG 99
Sir Lo Feng Luh to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received August 3.)
Chinese Legation, London, August 2, 1899.
My Lord Marquess,
IN the month of October 1898 a demand was addressed by the Chinese Government to the Governor of Hong Kong for the extradition of a Chinese subject named Chung Sui-yung, a native of the Sung-On district, in the Province of Kwang-Tung, for hearing before China, and on the 7th November following, the case came before Commander Hastings, the Police Magistrate at Hong Kong.
The plea on which his extradition was demanded was one of burglary, alleged to have been committed at a place named Cha Tao Kok in the Sung-On district. The Magistrate dismissed the case on the ground of an alibi having been proved by two German missionaries, who testified to having seen the accused at some other place at the time the offence was committed.
Subsequently, another demand for the extradition of Chung Sui-yung was made before the same Court. This time, on the charge of his having, by means of intimidation and other illegal devices, extorted money from the inhabitants of Lung Hwa and other villages in the Sung-On district, and notably from a person named Tai Man-hing. On this occasion, also, the case was dismissed at the village of Tai-Chung in the same district, and the prisoner discharged, the evidence adduced not having been considered sufficient to warrant a conviction.
It may here be stated, that the offences charged against the defendant were both of them committed in October 1898, and that the district of Sung-On is contiguous to the territory leased to Great Britain under the Convention for the extension of Hong Kong, signed at Peking on the 25th June, 1898.
It is much to be regretted that these attempts to procure the extradition of Chung Sui-yung were not successful; for, he having been the arch-ringleader of the band of desperadoes who subsequently opposed the British occupation of the leased territory at Kowloong, his conviction and extradition would probably have obviated the collision that lately took place between the band and the colonial forces; and likewise have prevented the misunderstanding between the British and the Chinese local authorities to which the collision unfortunately gave rise.
In the opinion of the Imperial Government, the case of Chung Sui-yung once more shows the danger of allowing Chinese criminal fugitives in Hong Kong to abuse the technicalities of British law, in order to thwart the requisitions of the Chinese Government for their surrender. I have, therefore, been instructed by the Tsung-li Yamên to call the serious attention of your Lordship to the matter, with a view to the adoption of some more certain and expeditious procedure whereby the extradition of fugitive criminals may be obtained. For, without this, it is much to be feared that with the increased facilities for escape afforded by the extension of the Colony on the Kowloong side of the harbour, great difficulties will be experienced by the provincial authorities, in exercising that effective control of the criminal classes in the Sung-On and adjacent districts, which is indispensable to enable China to discharge her international obligations as a good neighbour.
The right of China to the rendition of fugitive criminals from Hong Kong is based on Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858, which states, that "if criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hong Kong, or on board the British ships there, they shall, upon due requisition by the Chinese authorities, be searched for, and, on proof of their guilt, be delivered up."
The Imperial Government have always experienced great difficulty in obtaining the extradition of fugitive criminals from Hong Kong, and they impute this to the erroneous construction which, they consider, has hitherto been put on the Treaty by the Hong Kong authorities; and that, in order to insure a more successful result in future, a return to what was evidently the intention of the negotiators of the Treaty should be had recourse to.
The explicit terms of the Article above cited, and the date of the Treaty of which it forms a part, show that a more simple and summary procedure was intended than the elaborate one now insisted on by the Hong Kong authorities, who, instead of reading the Treaty in the light of the law and rules of procedure which were in force at
[2140 a-1]
481
154
C.
This Document is the Property of Her Britannic Majesty's Government...
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1.
C.U.
21537 [August 3
SECTION 15 AUG 99
Sir Lo Feng Luh to the Marquess of Salisbury.-(Received August 3.)
Chinese Legation, London, August 2, 1899.
My Lord Marquess,
IN the month of October 1898 a demand was addressed by the Chinese Govern- ment to the Governor of Hong Kong for the extradition of a Chinese subject named Chung Sui-yung, a native of the Sung-On district, in the Province of Kwang-Tung, on for hearing before China, and on the 7th November following, the case came Commander Hastings, the Police Magistrate at Hong Kong.
The plea on which his extradition was demanded was one of burglary, alleged to have been committed at a place named Cha Tao Kok in the Sung-On district." The Magistrate dismissed the case on the ground of an alibi having been proved by two German missionaries, who testified to having seen the accused at some other place at the time the offence was committed.
Subsequently, another demand for the extradition of Chung Sui-yung was made before the same Court. This time, on the charge of his having, by means of intimida- tion and other illegal devices, extorted money from the inhabitants of Lung Hwa and other villages in the Sung-On district, and notably from a person named Tai Man-hing On this occasion, also, the case was at the village of Tai-Chung in the same district, dismissed, and the prisoner discharged, the evidence adduced not having been considered sufficient to warrant a conviction.
It may here be stated, that the offences charged against the defendant were both of them committed in October 1898, and that the district of Sung-On is contiguous to the territory leased to Great Britain under the Convention for the extension of Hong Kong, signed at Peking on the 25th June, 1898.
It is much to be regretted that these attempts to procure the extradition of Chung Sui-yung were not successful; for, he having been the arch-ringleader of the band of desperadoes who subsequently opposed the British occupation of the leased territory at Kowloong, his conviction and extradition would probably bave obviated the collision that lately took place between the band and the colonial forces; and likewise have prevented the misunderstanding between the British and the Chinese local authorities to which the collision unfortunately gave rise.
In the opinion of the Imperial Government, the case of Chung Sui-yung once more shows the danger of allowing Chinese criminal fugitives in Hong Kong to abuse the technicalities of British law, in order to thwart the requisitions of the Chinese Govern- ment for their surrender. I have, therefore, been instructed by the Tsung-li Yamên to call the serious attention of your Lordship to the matter, with a view to the adoption of some more certain and expeditious procedure whereby the extradition of fugitive criminals may be obtained. For, without this, it is much to be feared that with the increased facilities for escape afforded by the extension of the Colony on the Kowloong side of the harbour, great difficulties will be experienced by the provisional authorities, in exercising that effective control of the criminal classes in the Sung-On and adjacent districts, which is indispensable to enable China to discharge her international obligations as a good neighbour.
The right of China to the rendition of fugitive criminals from Hong Kong is based on Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858, which states, that "if criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hong Kong, or on board the British ships there, they shall, upon due requisition by the Chinese authorities, be searched for, and, on proof of their guilt, be delivered up."
The Imperial Government have always experienced great difficulty in obtaining the extradition of fugitive criminals from Hong Kong, and they impute this to the erroneous construction which, they consider, has hitherto been put on the Treaty by the Hong Kong authorities; and that, in order to insure a more successful result in future, a return to what was evidently the intention of the negotiators of the Treaty should be had recourse to.
The explicit terms of the Article above cited, and the date of the Treaty of which it forms a part, show that a more simple and summary procedure was intended than the elaborate one now insisted on by the Hong Kong authorities, who, instead of reading the Treaty in the light of the law and rules of procedure which were in force at
[2140 a-1]
481
154
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.