CO129-429 - Public Offices & Others - 1915 — Page 312

6223

3.

C

310

16614

REC 9 APRI5 The third and fourth paragraphs of your letter raise questions of greater complexity; but it seems to the Council unnecessary to discuss at any length the probable effect of each section of the Army Act if applied to the civil population, since Ir. Harcourt's close analysis emphasizes the inherent difficulty of applying to the government of civilians an Act intended solely for the discipline and regulation of the Army. The arguments set forth serve but to convince the Council that the opinion expressed in paragraph 5 of their letter of the 7th February 1915, was correct.

4. In this connection I am to say that a very similar opinion was expressed by the Council as long ago as 1907.

The

question arose out of certain regulations for the control of the civil population in war, which were so framed as to subject every civilian in the Colony concerned to the terms of the Army Act.

The Council then stated that they were aware of no

military reason to justify such a measure which they believed

to be constitutionally open to grave objection, and they declared their conviction that the provisions of the Army Act

were quite unsuitable for application to a civilian community.

This view was based on lessons learned in the South African War.

5. So far as the present state of affairs at Hong Kong

is concerned it may possibly be the case that there is no

immediate need for special action. But in the Council'8

opinion, a very much larger question is opened for consideration,

and one which cannot be discussed solely in relation to long

Kong or to the existing conditions in that Colony. That

question is the policy which ought to be adopted in regard to the

control