CO129-505-10 Chinese Extradition Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 14-7-1927 - 2-11-1927 — Page 77

77

purposes of the Ordinance. That is the position the

proposed amending Ordinance would establish, and the matter

would then be perfectly simple. That Ordim.nce might have

been law now but for the opposition of the Legation.

8. It may be noted here that when the status of the

Canton Government was in question in the case of Re Chung

Sau Nam (1914) 9.H.K.L.R.26, the Consul General at Canton

give evidence before the Full Court that he "absolutely

recognised the Provincial Government of Kwong Tung". There

was other evidence on the point also.

9. The Government of Hong Kong is just as anxious as

the Consul General that extradition to Canton should be

resumed, and it is prepared to take steps to that end in

spite of the danger, which we have suffered from in the past,

that fictitious criminal charges my be made against

political opponents, and in spite of the difficulty of enforcing the undertaking which is to be given under section

4(5) of the Ordinance. That is why the Governor has again

raised the question of the proposed amending Ordin nce. The difficulty about adopting the suggestion in paragraph 6 of

the Consul General's letter, i.e., that we should put the

Ordinence in motion in the cases mentioned in the hope that

the legal difficulty might be avoided or evaded, is the difficulty of seeing what certificate the Governor could properly give to satisfy the courts. He would have to consult with the Minister on this point. I doubt if it would be enough for him to state in his order to the magistrate that a requisition had been made to him by "X an officer of the Chinese Government". It is conceivable that neither the

fugitive criminal nor the magistrate might raise the point, but if it were raised, as it is almost certain to be, I

think