"I am satisfied from the evidence that the great criminal is this druggist, and that it is an opprobrium to the administration of justice to punish these poor women as I have done, and allow the druggist to escape. I therefore ask His Excellency to direct that proceedings be forthwith taken against the man, and that the case be conducted at the magistracy by the Crown Solicitor, so that he may be committed for trial before the Supreme Court."

He then speaks of a case of a woman whom he sentenced on May 6th, 1879, to two years' imprisonment with hard labor for stealing a female child. He adds:

"The woman was merely a middle woman, and received a small sum, but it came out in the evidence that Leung A-Luk had bought the child for $53, and was actually confining her in a room where the child was discovered. She was the great criminal. It is an opprobrium to justice to punish this poor woman, and to allow Leung A-Luk to go unpunished. I am aware that, according to precedents here and at home, it is within the province of the presiding judge to direct prosecutions such as these to be instituted, but I think it more convenient to ask His Excellency, as the head of the Executive (whose province it especially is to originate criminal proceedings) to direct prosecution. To let these chief offenders go unprosecuted, and to punish such miserable creatures, exposes the court to the contempt of the community, and tends to destroy all respect for the administration of justice in the Chinese community."

Accordingly the Governor forwarded this request on the part of the Chief Justice to the Attorney General, saying: "It is clear from the evidence and from documents published by the Contagious Diseases Commission that practices of this kind have prevailed unchecked, or almost unchecked, for many years past in this Colony." The Governor then referred to a case in point that he had submitted to the former Attorney General, but he "did not seem disposed to enforce the rights of the father, on the ground that he had sold the child." The Governor concludes: "I did not agree with his view of the law."

The last case was referred back to the Acting Police Magistrate to know why the woman, Leung A-Luk, was allowed to go unprosecuted. The Police Magistrate replied: "It appeared to me that 4th defendant (Leung A-Luk) being a well-to-do woman, and having no children of her own, had purchased the girl with a view to adopting her." He adds: "When Acting Superintendent of Police last year, I wished to prosecute a man for detaining a child … but as it was shown that the boy had been sold by his father some months previously, the Attorney General considered the purchaser was in loco parentis, [in the place of a parent] and could not be purchased."

On the two cases to which the attention of the Governor had been brought, the Attorney General reported:

"With the greatest respect for the Chief Justice, I doubt the policy of prosecuting the woman he refers to, having regard to the fact that the magistrate had discharged her for want of testimony, and looking to his further report. The magistrate should always be supported if possible; and if he discharged the woman, and put her at the bar as a witness, and she was used again at the Supreme Court, it might look like a breach of good faith to treat her now as a criminal…. As to the druggist's case, I think that the only thing that can be said is that it would look to be a breach of faith to proceed against him now."

When the case was referred to the Crown Solicitor, he said:

"As to the druggist the parties had now left the Colony, and there were no witnesses against him. The purchase by Chinese of young orphans, and indeed of others whose parents are too poor to keep them, is a social custom amongst the natives, and is of constant occurrence in Hong Kong. These 'pocket-children,' as they are usually termed, are often treated with great affection, and are far better off than they were previous to their being so bought."

It was the 30th of May when the Chief Justice called the Governor's attention to these cases. It was July before the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor seem to have paid any attention to the cases. It was no wonder, then, that some of the witnesses could not be found. Meanwhile the Governor had left the Colony for a trip to Japan, and W.H. Marsh was acting in his place. On July 16th, he returned answer to the Chief Justice that he had now received a report on the cases from the Attorney General, the committing magistrate and the Crown Solicitor, and