CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 41

las

機

difficulty go perilously near the unconstitutional act of a colony legislating for persons beyond its own limits (Jenkyns "Rritish rule and jurisdiction beyond the seas" pp.26 et seqq.) Anson's "Law and Custom

of the constitutions" Vol.II Ft.II 0.77. It is

very doubtful whether the Hongkong Courts could exercise criminal jurisdiction under their ordinance when the criminal acts are committed in China, Macleod v.

Attorney General for New South Wales (1891 A.Č. 455). It is I think quite clear that Hongkong can only legislate for its own companies end its legislature rev require its companies to do certain acts within the Colony. e.g. keep a registered office, make returns, or pay certain dues, but it will require an Act of Parliament

or at least on Order in council to make Hongkone law

applicable to British subjects in Ching, and I doubt

the possibility of so legislating by Order in Council if

the Colonial ordinance is vicious in its inception in

that it legislates for persons and matters beyond the

territorial limits of the Colony. Sir P. Piggottsays

in his judgment "if the ordinance had authorised the

registration of Shanghai Companies, and had extended the

jurisdiction of the Court to them or if a special

jurisdiction had been given to the Shanghai Court, that

would have been another matter", These two are, I

submit, things which the Hongkong legislature cannot do.

It seems to me therefore that assuming the second course

outlined in only earlier papers to be that pdcpted, it

will be necessary to exclude from the Hongkong ordinance

provisions which are ultra vires and to supply such as

may be necessary by Order in Council. The object,

however, when all is said and done, is to provide a scheme

which will allow the creation of British joint stock

companies to be managed and to do their business

exclusively in Chine, and that such companies should not

40

7