>
329
19798.
Despatch No. 204 of 22nd. May, 1911) that the law (section 9
of Ordinance 7 of 1889) already made provision to meet what
was reasonable in this connection. He then asked whether if
the Consul was fully satisfied of the guilt of the accused
from the evidence taken before him, the trial in Hongkong
might be dispensed with and whether the Hongkong Government on
the representation of the Consul would dispense with a trial in
Hongkong prior to extradition. He was informed that "by
British law the accused must have an opportunity of answering
his accusers and cross-examining witnesses". In order not to
give offence to Mr. Wei Han by appearing to consider the sub-
-sequent trial (after extradition) in a Chinese Court as a
mere farce I added that I could not say whether the opportuni-
-ties of defence and cross-examination given at this subsequent
trial would be satisfactory. As to why the procedure of allow-
-ing depositions to be taken before the Consul in Canton had
been allowed to fall into desuetude I observed that I would
like to look up the papers for the procedure had become obso-
-lete long before I came to the Colony. There was no intention
whatever present to my mind of abandoning the trial in Hong-
-kong, but my precis of the conversation was very badly worded
and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.