CO129-546-11 Kowloon city- expropriation of Chinese owned land 9-1-1934 - 28-12-1934 — Page 91

91

The Chinese

British jurisdiction in Kowloon City. The Chinese

Government having tacitly acquiesced for over thirty years,

cannot now say that we are not rightfully there. The

original assumption of jurisdiction having been clearly

justified we should be on strong ground in arguing that,

pending at any rate a demand for the restoration of

Chinese jurisdiction, we have a right to continue to

exercise jurisdiction and hence to expropriate. We should

however be on less strong ground in resisting a demand

for the restoration of Chinese jurisdiction.

Government have so far made no such demand. They have

based themselves on the contention that de jure their

jurisdiction in Kowloon City has never ceased, thus

inferring that our original assumption of jurisdiction

was not justified. There would be no difficulty in

rebutting this assumption but difficulties would arise

if the Chinese Government were to shift their ground and

say that, although the original assumption of jurisdiction

may have been justified, its continued exercise is not.

There would seem to be a fairly strong case for the

present exercise of British jurisdiction in Kowloon City

but the case for the continued exercise in future of such

jurisdiction would seem to be less strong unless it can be

established that the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction in

Kowloon City is still inconsistent with the military

requirements for the defence of Hong Kong.

3. As regards paragraph 6 of the Convention

Sir John Simon is advised that, although the creation of a

public park would appear not to come under the heading

"the like official purposes", if in fact land in other

parts