CO129-505-10 Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 14-7-1927 - 2-11-1927 — Page 108

107 END

and I therefore questioned whether it was open to the

Hong Kong Government to vary the interpretation of the Treaty

of Tientsin to the extent contemplated in the draft Ordinance

without reference to the other contracting party.

In my telegram of 28th Sept ember last I

suggested that the question might be referred to the Law

Officers of the Crown, but I note from your despatch under

reply that the defacto authorities of Kuangtung have now

been "informed of the position" which I assume means that

they have been informed that it is doubtful whether they can be recognised any longer as qualified to make applications

for extradition.

The political effect of such a pronouncement

may have been considerable, but I adhere to the opinion that any suspension of extradition is to be deprecated and while I do not see how there can be any necessity now for defining the attitude of the Hong Kong Government which has remained undefined for many years, I consider that a mere statement that "the officer administering the Government of Kuangtung province is held to be an officer administering a provincial government for the purposes of the Extradition Ordinance"

would meet the case.

In view of the above considerations I regret that I am unable to concur in your view that the proposed ordinance is the best means of solving the question, more especially as in the nine months which have elapsed since the question was raised the prospects of a united government in China have considerably improved.

I have, &c.,

(Sd.) R. H. Clive,

(for H.M. Minister).