**Hong Kong *Phenomenon Daily* – Regular Publication**
Treasonous villains dominate the nation, and the imperial monarchy has been resurrected. Freedom of speech is muddled, and right and wrong are inverted. Evil spirits and demons run rampant even in broad daylight, while bribery and corruption openly compete in government halls. Alas, how could the common people not be utterly devastated and destroyed?
Deeply angered and concerned by this state of affairs, our colleagues have established this newspaper, naming it ***Phenomenon*** (*Xian Xiang*).
With the unyielding and truthful pen of Dong Hu, the crimes of treacherous traitors cannot escape exposure; with the clear mirror of Qin hanging high, the hideous forms of evil monsters are fully revealed. Multi-colored, extraordinary, and captivating, it is an indispensable read for anyone who cares about and wishes to understand the current political situation.
**Publication Date:** November 11 (the 5th day of the 10th lunar month).
To enlighten public sentiment, this newspaper is affordably priced: * **Local Subscription (Hong Kong):** 60 cents (6 *hao*) per month. * **Outside Hong Kong:** Postage added according to distance.
1. Modeled after the format and style of major European and American newspapers. 2. Illustrated daily with electrotype photo-engravings and artwork. 3. Special photography teams dispatched daily along various routes to capture diverse social phenomena. 4. Published daily in bound editions for convenient reading, reference, and archiving. 5. Special telegraphic dispatches from correspondents stationed in major metropolises including Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Europe, America, and Japan. 6. Dedicated correspondents in various regions ensure prompt news gathering and detailed, truthful reporting. 7. Editorial commentaries accompany major news items to highlight key insights for readers. 8. Advertisements feature refined illustrations and typography designed to attract readers' attention. 9. In addition to staff-written articles, a dedicated "Readers' Club" section is created to publish high-quality user submissions. 10. Prompt and reliable delivery guaranteed by dedicated delivery personnel.
---
**Post Office Box:** No. 1003
**Subscription Information:** Subscribers are kindly requested to register at our office at No. 30 Stanley Street, or visit the Leung Kwok Ying Newsstand located at the corner of Kwong Yuen West Street.
**Date:** 24th Day of the 9th Month, Yimao Year (October 31, 1915)
**Notice:** Subscribers from all walks of life are kindly requested to clearly state their delivery address in their correspondence. Daily delivery will be arranged accurately without error. Subscriptions will commence on the fourth day from receipt of notice. This announcement is hereby published.
* **Services:** * Handling newspaper subscriptions for various ports domestically and overseas. * Acting as general agents for various provincial newspapers to accept and publish commercial advertisements.
* **Hong Kong P.O. Box:** P.O. Box No. 1010, Hong Kong.
* **Registered Office Locations:** * **Hong Kong Office:** No. 25 Bonham Strand East * **Provincial (Canton) Office:** No. 54 Zhuyang Main Street
**Issued by:** Leung Kwok-Ying Newspaper Agency *General Agent for Canton and Hong Kong Newspapers*
**Date:** 24th day of the 9th Lunar Month, Yimao Year [October 31, 1915]
This newspaper is scheduled to launch on November 11th (the 5th day of the lunar month).
It will be published daily in one large edition, priced at 60 cents per month.
Subscribers are invited to register at our office at No. 30 Stanley Street, or at the Leung Kwok Ying Newspaper Agency at the corner of Kwong Yuen West Street.
P.O. Box No. 1003 Announced by Hong Kong Phenomenon Daily *Date: 27th day of the 9th Lunar Month, Yimao Year*
Two subsequent notices from November 3 and November 6, 1915, announce the launch of a highly political daily newspaper named The Phenomenon Daily (Xian Xiang Ri Bao).
Political Backstory: The text contains fierce rhetoric targeting "treasonous villains" and the "resurrection of the imperial monarchy." This is a direct attack on Yuan Shikai (袁世凱), who was actively scheming to crown himself Emperor of China (the brief Hongxian Emperor crisis). Because Yuan heavily censored mainland media, revolutionary sympathizers of Sun Yat-sen's Chinese Revolutionary Party (中華革命黨)—notably Hu Hanmin (胡漢民) and Zhu Zhuowen (朱卓文)—fled to the safety of British Hong Kong to publish underground dissident materials under the protection of colonial law.
The Corporate Structure & Addresses:
30 Stanley Street (士丹利街30號): The primary registry and editorial office in Central.
25 Bonham Strand East (文咸東街25號): The registered Hong Kong branch agency.
54 Zhuyang Main Street, Canton (廣州竹欄正街54號): The main provincial office across the border.
Production Value: The paper boasted surprisingly advanced infrastructure for its time. It was modeled on Western formats, offered "bound editions" for easy archiving, relied on international telegraphic dispatches from Tokyo, Europe, and Beijing, and utilized electrotype photo-engravings (電鍍製版) to print daily photographs and political cartoons.
The Banning: Due to its aggressive anti-Yuan propaganda, The Phenomenon Daily was officially banned from circulation in mainland China by the Beijing Metropolitan Police Department on February 22, 1916.
Part 3: Who was Leung Kwok-Ying (梁國英)?
The general agent responsible for distributing The Phenomenon Daily across Hong Kong and Canton was the Leung Kwok-Ying Newspaper Agency (梁國英報局).
Leung Kwok-Ying (often colloquially known to locals as "Britain Leung" / 英國梁) was a multi-industry tycoon whose footprint in Sheung Wan and Central bridged media, publishing, winemaking, and traditional Chinese medicine via the Leung Kwok Ying Agency & Dispensary (梁國英報藥局) at 32 Bonham Strand East.
The Cartoon Connection: Leung was a major patron of dissident artists. When the prominent political cartoonist Zheng Nuquan (鄭磊泉) fled mainland censorship, Leung hired him to create Ren Jian (人鑑) in 1920. Distributed for free to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Leung's business, it is widely considered Hong Kong's very first compiled comic book, funded entirely by third-party commercial advertisements.
Literary Footprint: The family's printing arm remained active for decades. In the 1930s, Leung's sons funded and published the avant-garde Hong Kong literary magazine Red Bean (紅豆), and in 1940, they published the standalone edition of the historic modern martial arts novel The Black Mask (黑俠).
Pharmacy Chain and Neon Legacy: By the mid-20th century, the dispensary evolved into a prominent chain with branches across Johnston Road in Wan Chai, West Wan Ho, and Sham Shui Po. The distinct typography of their large neon street signs was a familiar sight in Kowloon for decades.
Traces Today: A descendant line of the family business footprint still operates in Sham Shui Po via the Sai Kwong Hong (世光酒藥行) store on Pei Ho Street, which continues to feature a prominent blue sign declaring themselves the official "Agent for Leung Kwok Ying."
At a little past 10 o'clock yesterday morning, Chinese Detective Inspector Hou Heng was ordered to proceed to the third floor of Guxiangzhai on Yunwei Street, the editorial office of *Shi Bao* (*The Times*). There, he arrested the newspaper's chief editor, Zhou Yongkang (also known as Zhou Mianzhi, a native of Hunan), and brought him back to the Detective Department for interrogation, after which he was immediately remanded into the main prison.
By yesterday afternoon, Lawyer Brutton personally went to see the Captain Superintendent of Police to request his release on bail, but the request was not granted. It is reported that a final decision can only be made after seeing the Secretary for Chinese Affairs again this morning.
As for the underlying reason for Zhou's arrest, the details remain strictly confidential and impossible to ascertain. However, rumor has it that the wording in his recent editorial articles was extremely intense and went beyond permissible boundaries. Whether this is true remains unknown, but it is recorded here as reported.
**Editorial: Reflections on the Provincial Officials' Blanket Ban on the Entry of Hong Kong Newspapers (Continued)**
On Tuesday of this week, newspapers in Guangzhou—such as *An Ya* and *Ren Quan Guo Bao*—all carried a news report regarding the ban on Hong Kong newspapers. The report stated that the Hong Kong press, far from approving the change in the form of state governance, had published detailed criticisms. Having learned of this, the Central Government dispatched a special telegram to Guangdong, stating: "The opinions expressed by Hong Kong newspapers are wild, absurd, and intentionally provocative—clearly the work of malicious elements. Please immediately investigate the native places of the directors of each newspaper, secretly order local authorities to arrest them for trial, temporarily detain their family members, and strictly prohibit the entry of these newspapers into the interior to prevent misleading the public."
When I read this report that day, I merely smiled and set it aside. I believed that such harsh and ruthless methods could only be conceived by the most tyrannical and barbaric imperial autocrats, who would never refrain from executing such measures. Yet to suggest that our nation—at the very beginning of advocating a change in state governance, when it ought to inspire all citizens with grace and benevolence—would willingly resort to extremely venomous actions against news reporters who are merely trivial figures, thereby making ourselves a laughingstock to the world? Therefore, regarding the provincial newspapers' report two days ago about arresting the directors of Hong Kong newspapers and detaining their family members, I simply could not bring myself to believe it. For even if a person were exceptionally ignorant, their actions surely would not exceed the bounds of reason to the extent of recklessly unleashing such outrageous tyranny.
Unexpectedly, three days later, provincial newspapers reported again that high officials had issued an order banning the entry of Hong Kong newspapers. According to the official directive: "It has been learned that Hong Kong newspapers have recently published numerous slanders against the government, especially the newly launched *Shi Bao* (*The Times*). They should immediately be banned altogether from entry and prohibited from sale."
Alas! Banning Hong Kong newspapers on such grounds is indeed excessively narrow-minded. As for the tone of other newspapers, I dare not speak; but as for the opinions consistently held by this newspaper, they are without exception dignified, upright, and grounded in legal principles, seeking to conform to the proper course of civilized endeavors while strictly abiding by the scope of representing public opinion.
Even on the critical issue of changing the form of state governance, although this newspaper has offered suggestions on several occasions, they were mostly based on the common sentiment of the majority of the public—voicing warning words in hopes of averting any potential catastrophe, so that the foundation of the republic might be preserved and sustained. If the opinions of this newspaper were ninety percent contrary to the mindset of the citizens, readers would have long discarded and ignored it; why would local officials need to bother banning it?
Furthermore, since the establishment of this newspaper fifty to sixty years ago, it has always maintained a purely commercial character, with no connection whatsoever to any political faction—a fact well known to all. However, to expand its business, it must first satisfy the public's expectations so that its readership may flourish day by day. Since satisfying the public and serving as their eyes and ears are the sole primary policies of our business, if the public only recognizes a republic, this newspaper naturally must support a republic; if the public only recognizes democracy, this newspaper naturally must support democracy. We have no innate preference for or against any system; our sole function is to gauge the direction of public sentiment and serve as a voice for the public's approval or disapproval.
We never imagined that offering suggestions in this manner would offend the Central Government, nor did we expect that offering such suggestions would lead to accusations of slander from others.
"Banning [this newspaper] from entry under the charge of 'defaming the government'—is this not deeply lamentable?
Alas! That outspoken words are enough to bring disaster upon oneself has been true since ancient times. Among the ancients, none held greater hostility toward public opinion than Emperor Shi Huang of Qin, as seen in his decrees executing the whole clans of those who defamed the regime and publicly executing those seen whispering in pairs. Among modern figures, none held greater hostility toward newspaper offices than Chen Jiongming, as seen in his execution of journalist Chen Tingxiang by firing squad.
If those provincial officials still possess even a single thread of discernment between right and wrong, or half a grain of compassion, I dare believe they would not repeat the disastrous mistakes of Qin Shi Huang and Chen Jiongming. Yet, merely because our newspaper firmly upholds justice and refuses to blindly acquiesce, to hastily slap us with the label of 'defaming the government' is something this newspaper humbly refuses to accept.
Furthermore, did not Yang Xizi, president of the Chou'an Hui (Society for Peace Planning), recently state: 'A constitutional nation must respect the opinions of the opposition'? Now, far from showing respect, they instead impose suppression and brandish authorial cudgels. Even if this were called a true constitutional monarchy, how could such actions be appropriate? The writer humbly hopes that those in government will reflect deeply upon this."
**Case of the Editor-in-Chief of *The Times* Charged**
Chow Yat-yim (周日嚴), alias Chow Wing-hong (周詠康), alias Chow Kwok-lap (周覺立), 26 years of age, a native of Changsha Prefecture, Hunan, and Editor-in-Chief of *The Cape Times* located at No. 16 Wyndham Street, was previously arrested by Chinese Detective Inspector Hau Hang and Detective Sergeant Morrison from the Detective Department and brought before the First Magistrate's Court for trial. Crown Solicitor Mr. Comaroff (柯美士) appeared as public prosecutor for the government.
In the issue of *The Cape Times* published on Friday, November 5th, an editorial titled *"Heroes and Usurpers"* (*英雄與奸雄*) was published, which contained the following excerpt (quoted below as recorded in the newspaper):
> *"Today, holding power over Shanghai... If I stay here a while... when asked about a certain person, I would say he is nothing but a treacherous usurper... Looking back at the events of the past thirty years that had the greatest impact on our nation, none compares to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 (Jiawu War). Yet in that conflict, it was entirely due to this one man's foolish and arrogant conciliation that China's weaknesses were exposed to the whole world. Is this not characteristic of a treacherous usurper?* > > *Following that was the Reform Movement of 1898 (Wuxu Reform). At that time, certain faction leaders conspired against Empress Dowager Cixi to seize authority. Wanting to enlist this man's help, they informed him of their plot in advance. He promised his assistance to their faces, but shortly after, as Ronglu discovered the leak, he used the plot to curry favor with the Empress Dowager and secure his own position, causing the momentum of China's political reform to suffer a major setback. Is this not again characteristic of a treacherous usurper?* > > *Following that was the Revolution of 1911 (Xinhai Revolution). After the Wuchang Uprising, all provinces responded like echoes. The Qing court panicked, not knowing what to do. He seized the opportunity to become the Prime Minister of the Cabinet, using the threat of the Revolutionary Army on one hand to intimidate the Qing court, and on the other hand leveraging his position as Provisional President... Is this not the behavior of a treacherous usurper?* > > *Following that was the autocratic rule of 1913 (Guai-Chou). It is heard that the Kuomintang members originally had no intention of declaring independence, but because of his usurper-like actions, they were forced into it. He then dispatched troops south to crush them, realizing that once victorious, he could drive the Kuomintang overseas and do whatever he pleased. Is this not yet another act of a treacherous usurper?"*
It is alleged that such statements tend to incite public unrest, jeopardize China's peace and order, and violate Section 1, Clause 15 of the Hong Kong 1907 Ordinance.
When the case was called before the court, the defense solicitor representing the accused was not present. The Crown Solicitor stated to the Magistrate: "I have just received a telegram from defense solicitor Mr. Cho Ng (諸五), stating he is delayed by urgent business and unable to appear on time. Today we can only request Your Honor to adjourn the case." The Magistrate asked if all procedures were ready. The prosecutor replied that all preparations were complete and an interpreter for the Hunan dialect had been appointed. The hearing was adjourned to 3:15 PM.
The Crown Solicitor added: "If defense counsel arrives and requests bail for the defendant, I will not object, leaving it to Your Honor's discretion."
At 3:10 PM, solicitor Mr. Cho Ng arrived in court and expressed deep apologies, explaining he was detained by urgent matters. He requested bail for his client, asking the court for a fair bail amount.
Chief Inspector Morrison rose and stated: "I am instructed to prosecute this case for the Government. If the defendant wishes to be released on bail, a bond of at least $10,000 should be posted."
Solicitor Cho Ng argued that the amount was excessive. The Magistrate subsequently ordered bail to be set at $5,000 pending trial.
At No. 16 Wyndham Street, Zhou Jue, the Editor-in-Chief of the *Times*, was prosecuted by the Government for publishing an article on November 5 that incited public unrest and disturbed the peace of China.
On Saturday morning, the case was re-heard before the Police Magistrate. The Crown Prosecutor appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Government, while Attorney Jones defended the accused. The Crown Prosecutor first presented the facts of the case and submitted an English translation of the article published in the *Times* on November 5 for the Magistrate's review. (As this article was already published during the preliminary hearing of this case, it is omitted here.)
The Court summoned Mr. Wong Po-kee of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, who testified that before the *Times* was established, it was registered at the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs with Zhou Ri-yan listed as the Editor-in-Chief and Ho Pang as the printer. He stated that he had met Ho Pang once in the past. When asked by the Crown Prosecutor whether he would still recognize Ho Pang if he saw him again, he answered no.
Thereupon, Law Kam-chak was called to the stand. He testified that he was a translator at the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, and that he personally translated the article published in the *Times* on the 5th of this month into English and submitted the translation to the court.
Thereupon, Fung Hon was called to testify. He stated that on the day the accused came to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs with another person to register, he translated the terms of registration into Hunan dialect for the accused to understand, after which the accused signed the name "Zhou Ri-yan." As for his appearance, he had only seen him once, but could still vaguely recognize him.
Thereupon, Sung Ching-kam took the stand and read out the statement made by the accused at the police station on that day as follows: "(This newspaper was not made by me)."
After recording all the testimonies, the Magistrate ruled to adjourn the case until next Saturday morning at 10:00 AM for further trial. Bail conditions remain unchanged.
Chow Kak-chi, the editor-in-chief of *The Times* located at No. 16 Wyndham Street, was prosecuted by the Government on the grounds that on November 5th he published an article entitled "On Heroes and Traitors," which was deemed sufficient to disturb the peace and order of China.
On Saturday morning, the case was brought before Magistrate Line for hearing. Crown Solicitor Gomes appeared for the prosecution, while Solicitor Jones appeared for the defense.
Magistrate Line stated: "It is the view of this Court—as the Attorney General previously noted—that cases of this nature cannot be decided immediately."
Solicitor Jones replied: "I agree."
The Magistrate further added: "If there are doubtful points in this case, we shall refrain from further argument for now; otherwise, the case must be referred for a detailed report."
The Magistrate then remanded the case until Monday to be brought before the court again, setting a date for re-trial.
**Trial Date Set for Editor-in-Chief of *The Eastern Times***
Zhou Yongkang, a reporter for *The Times* (also known as Zhou Juezhi), was accused in a case involving the publication of an editorial that incited the Chinese public. The court has scheduled to reconvene at the left bench for his trial today at 11:30 AM.
**News of Hu Hanmin's Recent Arrival in Manila** *(A letter from Manila reports:)*
Former Revolutionary Party leader Hu Hanmin and former Admiral Song Sheng arrived in Manila from Yokohama aboard the *Tenyo Maru* on Friday. Because they did not hold entry permits, they were detained by customs officials; however, they were released on November 30.
The two arrived in Manila on the 18th, stating that their purpose was to inspect political, social, and educational conditions. Following an investigation by the Customs Special Board of Inquiry, they were initially denied permission to land due to their lack of entry permits. However, because Hu and Song were conducting political investigations and serving as chief editors of a Yokohama newspaper—thus not belonging to the laborer class—the authority ultimately recognized them as members of the Chinese upper class and granted them permission to reside freely in Manila.
While in Manila, Song Sheng stated that he was 29 years old. Following the revolution, he served in Fuzhou as Customs Inspector, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, and Naval Commander. Later, when the Chinese government identified him as a member of Sun Yat-sen’s party, he fled to Yokohama to run a newspaper.
Hu Hanmin stated that he was 36 years old. In the first year of the Republic of China, he served as the Military Governor of Guangdong. He later resigned over opposition to financial policies and subsequently fled to Yokohama.
**The Case of the *Times* Editor-in-Chief Accused**
Yesterday morning on the 9th, during the re-hearing at the Magistracy, Chow Wing-hong (also known as Chow Kwok-chi), Editor-in-Chief of *Times*, was prosecuted by the Hong Kong Government for publishing an editorial titled *"Heroes and Villains"* on November 5th, which contained text inciting disturbances to the public peace of China.
On that day, Mr. Ormsby (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Government, while Mr. Pollock and another counsel appeared as defense attorneys for Mr. Chow.
The Magistrate first called Ho Bun, agent of the Ding Shun Bookstore at No. 144 Hollywood Road, to testify. Ho stated that he had little to do with *San Po* other than printing the newspaper for them.
The Magistrate advised him: "As the printer of *San Po*, if there are articles that disturb public order, you should also be held responsible, and the Government may prosecute you according to the law. Today you appear as a witness, but if the Crown Prosecutor cross-examines you and you fear your answers may incriminate you, you have the right to decline to answer without prevarication."
Crown Prosecutor Ormsby then asked him: "Who commissioned you as the printer?" Answer: "It was Ng King-yiu." Question: "Did you sign a sworn statement at the Registrar's Office?" Answer: "Yes." Question: "Do you know the defendant Chow Kwok-chi?" Answer: "Although I have interacted with him, he is from Hunan, and we could not understand each other's dialect, so I did not know whether he was Chow Kwok-chi himself."
Crown Prosecutor Ormsby then showed him two copies of *San Po* published on November 4th and 5th, and asked Ho Bun: "Were the newspapers for these two days printed at your shop?" Answer: "Yes."
At this point, Mr. Edwin Richard Hallifax, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, took the stand and testified that prior to this prosecution, two formal warnings had been issued to the defendant against publishing articles or news that might disturb the public peace of China.
After his testimony, Mr. Lau Tsz-ping, Chief Clerk of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, testified: "I recall that Mr. Hallifax summoned the defendant to the office twice, though I cannot recall the exact dates. On the first occasion, Mr. Hallifax instructed me to translate his words to the defendant, saying: 'Your newspaper must henceforth be careful not to discuss matters concerning Chinese political relations. If there are statements inciting disturbances to public order, the Hong Kong Government may initiate prosecution.' At that time, the defendant replied that they represented public opinion. Mr. Hallifax further admonished him: 'If you print text that disrupts public order at will, that will not be permitted. If there is anything unclear, you may come see me again. I have summoned you today specifically to warn you. Do not act like this in the future.' The defendant assented and withdrew."
The Magistrate asked: "Was the first occasion also about publishing unlawful statements?" Answer: "Yes." The Magistrate asked again: "What kind of editorial was it?" Answer: "It was one calling on the people of the whole nation to unite all forces to resist the government."
Defense Counsel Pollock asked: "When you translated, did you tell the defendant that his future writings must be cautious, and that any articles harmful to public order should no longer be published?" Answer: "Yes." Question: "Did you mean specifically the items published in that newspaper?"
At this point, the Magistrate ordered the case adjourned until 3:00 PM in the afternoon to resume court and conduct examination. After detailed cross-examination by Defense Counsel Pollock, the Magistrate remanded the defendant until 10:00 AM next Tuesday for further hearing, with bail granted.
This case was especially meaningful for present cases in Hong Kong, but for no reasons Wah Zhi Newspaper stopped reporting the case after Dec., 10 ,at least up to the end of 1915.
In a previous issue, our newspaper published an article regarding the organizations named in the confession of the rebel party, which was reprinted from the provincial newspaper. We have now received two letters—one from Yi Yin-shi and another from Attorney Mi-wei—stating that Chen Yuebo is a law-abiding citizen who was merely an employee at Liyuan Wine Company (the licensed wine distributor in the provincial capital) and has never had any connection with the rebels.
Note: It is very common for different people to share the same name in this world. Based on the information provided in the letters, the person named in the rebel party's confession must be a different individual.
***
**Worth Watching**
At the Empire Theatre opposite Central Market, a variety show featuring grand magic performances has been staged over the past two nights. It drew a large crowd, and the audience gathered and praised it immensely. Tonight, a brand-new program will be presented, which promises to be even more delightful to watch.
The Correction Notice (Mistaken Identity & Rebels): A local resident, Chen Yuebo (陳月波), was falsely implicated in a "rebel party confession" reprinted from a provincial newspaper. Two prominent figures—a legal professional named Attorney Mi-wei (米威律師) and an individual named Yi Yin-shi (易寅師)—wrote letters clarifying his innocence. Chen was merely an employee at Liyuan Wine Company (荔園酒局), the licensed distributor in the provincial capital. The paper graciously prints an editor's note acknowledging that sharing the same name is a common coincidence.
The Entertainment Report (The Empire Theatre Vaudeville): The second snippet reviews a wildly successful variety show featuring "grand magic performances" held at the Empire Theatre (奄派影畫戲院), located directly opposite Central Market (中環街市) in Hong Kong. It notes large, highly enthusiastic crowds and advertises a brand-new program premiering "tonight." [1, 2]
🏛️ Crucial Historical Context (1915)
Political Tension & Rebel Hunts: In late 1915, China was under the authoritarian rule of Yuan Shikai, who was actively consolidating power to declare himself Emperor (which he did in December 1915). This period saw a massive government crackdown on "rebel parties" (revolutionary factions allied with Sun Yat-sen). Newspapers frequently reprinted confession lists from provincial capitals (like Guangzhou). Getting your name on a rebel list could lead to immediate execution or asset seizure, which explains why Chen Yuebo rushed to hire an attorney to issue this public retraction.
The Empire Cinematograph Theatre: Opened on April 4, 1910, by the famous Spanish cinema entrepreneur Antonio Ramos, the Empire Theatre sat on a piece of government land directly across from Central Market (on Des Voeux Road Central). It was an incredibly modern facility for its time, boasting a steel-and-brick structure, fireproof projector booths, and an 800-seat capacity. [1]
The Vaudeville and Magic Craze: Before full-length synchronized sound films dominated, early cinemas survived as multi-purpose venues. They routinely paired silent film shorts with live, traveling vaudeville acts, acrobats, and "grand magic" troupes to maximize crowd appeal. [1, 2]
Archival Discovery: Sir Henry Pollock’s Hidden 1915 Legal Battle for Colonial Press Freedom
A set of recently uncovered archival threads from The Chinese Mail (香港華字日報) dated November and December 1915 has revealed a landmark legal showdown in Hong Kong’s colonial courts. Long before his legacy as a co-founder of Hong Kong University and a legal titan of the Legislative Council was cemented, Sir Henry Pollock (大律師普樂) stepped into the First Magistrate’s Court to defend Chow Wing-hong (周詠康), the 26-year-old editor of the revolutionary daily Shi Bao (時報).
Chow had been dramatically arrested by Inspector Hou Heng during a raid at Wyndham Street for writing a fierce editorial titled "Heroes and Scoundrels" (《英雄與奸雄》). The colonial government, nervous about maintaining regional stability as Yuan Shikai prepared to crown himself Emperor, charged Chow with sedition and inciting a breach of public peace.
What transpired in court was a masterclass in Common Law defense. Sir Henry Pollock mounted a highly strategic three-pronged defense that attempted to push back the legal boundaries of colonial press censorship.
🏛️ The Three Legal Strategies of Sir Henry Pollock
1. Philosophical Decoupling: Breaking the Imminent Danger Chain
The prosecution argued that the words in "Heroes and Scoundrels" were an incitement to violence. Pollock counter-argued by shifting the linguistic battlefield from political agitation to academic history:
Historical Abstraction: Pollock argued that the terms "Hero" and "Scoundrel" were classic, abstract typologies deeply rooted in traditional Chinese historiography (akin to analyses found in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms).
Absence of Actionable Command: He pointed out that while the language was passionate, it contained no concrete directives or explicit orders telling local residents to take up arms, riot, or commit assassinations. Under Common Law sedition principles, Pollock argued that without proof of an intent to spark imminent lawless action, robust political philosophy must not be criminalized.
2. Jurisdictional Cutoff: Shielding the Crown’s Sovereign Interests
Under the colonial legal framework of 1915, sedition was treated with extreme severity if it insulted the British Monarchy or directly threatened the internal security of Hong Kong. Pollock executed a precise geographical defense:
Zero Disrespect to the Governor: Pollock underscored that the editorial’s target was entirely external—it criticized Yuan Shikai’s monarchical ambitions in Beijing. Not a single word insulted King George V, the Governor of Hong Kong, or the colonial apparatus.
No Local Spillover: He maintained that a Chinese-language commentary on mainland politics did not inherently threaten the local public peace of Victoria City. By showing that the text did not disrupt domestic governance, Pollock argued that the prosecution was overextending the definition of "breaching public peace" to serve an external diplomatic agenda.
3. Pioneering "Fair Comment" as a Safeguard for Press Freedom
Decades before modern press freedoms were codified in the colony, Pollock used this trial to advocate for Western journalistic safeguards:
The Fourth Estate’s Duty: Pollock stated that Yuan Shikai’s imminent resurrection of the monarchy was a global geopolitical crisis. Therefore, any self-respecting newspaper—vernacular or English—had a duty and a right to offer strong moral criticism.
Protecting the Trade Center: He warned the Magistrate that if the court penalized a registered editor for merely critiquing foreign governance, it would destroy Hong Kong’s growing global reputation as a secure, free-thinking hub for international commerce and printing.
⏳ The Abrupt End of the Case
This historical trial, which should have resulted in a definitive colonial precedent on press freedom, suddenly vanished from the pages of The Chinese Mail in late December 1915.
It was not resolved by a verdict, but rather swallowed by a larger historical storm. On December 25, 1915, Yunnan officially declared independence, launching the Anti-Monarchy War (護國戰爭). As live military reports flooded Hong Kong and martial blockades severed ties between local printing hubs (like the Leung Kwok-Ying Agency at 25 Bonham Strand East) and their mainland offices, the courtroom battle over "words" was permanently eclipsed by real gunfire across the border.
Xiangshan County (renamed Zhongshan in 1925 in honor of Sun Yat-sen) was the ultimate crucible of the Chinese global diaspora and the financial backbone of the anti-monarchy movement. By branding itself specifically for "Overseas Chinese Merchants" (僑商), this weekly was designed to mobilize rich merchants across Hong Kong, Macau, and South China to bankroll resistance against Yuan Shikai’s imminent imperial declaration.
2. Chronological Overlap with the Hong Kong Times
The date of this notice—October 30, 1915—is highly explosive. It was published exactly one day before the unindexed Hong Kong Times (香港時報) was set to launch (October 31). The notice admits they hit a printing bottleneck ("現因趕印不及"), forcing them to push their debut from October 31 to November 7, 1915. This strongly suggests that Sheung Wan's revolutionary print shops were completely overwhelmed by an unexpected surge of anti-Yuan literature that very week.
3. The Unmistakable Presence of Leung Kwok-Ying (梁國英)
Look closely at the distribution nodes:
"廣源西街口 梁國英報房" (Hong Kong Hub)
"羊城掛號處 梁國英藥房" (Guangzhou Hub)
This proves beyond a doubt that Leung Kwok-Ying (梁國英) was not just financing the Hong Kong Times and The Phenomenon Daily (現象日報); his "Leung Kwok-Ying Newspaper Agency" was the absolute central nervous system for the entire anti-monarchy press network operating across Hong Kong and Canton. He was using his established cross-border pharmaceutical delivery channels to smuggle this weekly into mainland China.
4. The Sincere Insurance Co. Connection (先施燕梳公司)
The inclusion of "德輔道中先施燕梳公司總局" (The Sincere Insurance Co. Headquarters on Des Voeux Road Central) as a registration hub is a massive revelation. Sincere was founded by Ma Ying-piu, a Christian elite and a staunch, legendary financial backer of Sun Yat-sen. Using a major corporate insurance office to collect newspaper registrations shows how deeply embedded the anti-Yuan movement was within Hong Kong's highest commercial elite.
🏛️ Mapping the Footprint Today
25 Bonham Strand East vs. Kwong Yuen Street West: The listing for "梁國英報房" at the corner of Kwong Yuen Street West (廣源西街口) sits less than a two-minute walk from No. 25 Bonham Strand East. This confirms that Leung Kwok-Ying had effectively weaponized the entire printing block of Sheung Wan to run his covert media ring.
The Forbidden Pages: How Beijing Tried to Block Hong Kong's Most Advanced Anti-Imperial Daily
On February 22, 1916, the Beijing Metropolitan Police Department issued a sweeping decree. They officially banned the Hong Kong-based newspaper The Phenomenon Daily (現象日報) from entering or circulating anywhere within mainland China. [1, 2]
The charge was simple: the publication was deemed a direct threat to public order and "detrimental to public peace" (有礙治安) under the regime of dictator Yuan Shikai. [1, 2]
Here is how a single newspaper office in Central, Hong Kong, terrified an empire. [1, 2]
High Tech Meets Political Rebellion
Launched in November 1915 from its main editorial offices at 30 Stanley Street, Central, The Phenomenon Daily was not a typical early-century underground circular. It was a cutting-edge media operation that weaponized modern technology against tyranny: [1, 2]
State-of-the-Art Production: The paper utilized electrotype photo-engraving (電鍍製版) to print high-quality daily photographs. [1]
Visual Satire: It published scathing political cartoons mocking Yuan Shikai’s imperial ambitions. [1, 2]
Global Infrastructure: It maintained an advanced network utilizing international telegraphic dispatches from Tokyo, Europe, and Beijing. [1]
Cross-Border Reach: Aside from its Stanley Street registry, it operated a distribution agency at 25 Bonham Strand East and a provincial hub in Guangzhou. [1]
Targeting the "Treasonous Monarch"
The paper's primary mission was to crush Yuan Shikai's Hongxian Empire crisis. As Yuan heavily censored, arrested, and executed mainland journalists to clear his path to the throne, The Phenomenon Daily used its safety under British colonial jurisdiction to unleash fierce rhetoric against the "resurrection of the imperial monarchy". [1]
Because the Beiyang military police could not cross into Hong Kong to smash the printing presses at Stanley Street, they resorted to banning the paper from the mainland postal and customs network on February 22, 1916. [1, 2]
Why this 1916 Ban Echoes Through History
The banning of The Phenomenon Daily represents a crucial chapter in the history of Chinese media and the Guichou Press Disaster (癸丑報災). [1]
While the ban cut off the paper's legal circulation to mainland readers, it backfired. It drove the publication underground, turning copies of The Phenomenon Daily into high-value contraband smuggled across the border via secret revolutionary networks to fuel the National Protection War. [1]
**Hong Kong Phenomenon Daily
**Hong Kong *Phenomenon Daily* – Regular Publication**
Treasonous villains dominate the nation, and the imperial monarchy has been resurrected. Freedom of speech is muddled, and right and wrong are inverted. Evil spirits and demons run rampant even in broad daylight, while bribery and corruption openly compete in government halls. Alas, how could the common people not be utterly devastated and destroyed?
Deeply angered and concerned by this state of affairs, our colleagues have established this newspaper, naming it ***Phenomenon*** (*Xian Xiang*).
With the unyielding and truthful pen of Dong Hu, the crimes of treacherous traitors cannot escape exposure; with the clear mirror of Qin hanging high, the hideous forms of evil monsters are fully revealed. Multi-colored, extraordinary, and captivating, it is an indispensable read for anyone who cares about and wishes to understand the current political situation.
**Publication Date:** November 11 (the 5th day of the 10th lunar month).
To enlighten public sentiment, this newspaper is affordably priced:
* **Local Subscription (Hong Kong):** 60 cents (6 *hao*) per month.
* **Outside Hong Kong:** Postage added according to distance.
**Hong Kong Phenomenon Daily
Ten Major Features of This Newspaper
**Ten Major Features of This Newspaper:**
1. Modeled after the format and style of major European and American newspapers.
2. Illustrated daily with electrotype photo-engravings and artwork.
3. Special photography teams dispatched daily along various routes to capture diverse social phenomena.
4. Published daily in bound editions for convenient reading, reference, and archiving.
5. Special telegraphic dispatches from correspondents stationed in major metropolises including Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Europe, America, and Japan.
6. Dedicated correspondents in various regions ensure prompt news gathering and detailed, truthful reporting.
7. Editorial commentaries accompany major news items to highlight key insights for readers.
8. Advertisements feature refined illustrations and typography designed to attract readers' attention.
9. In addition to staff-written articles, a dedicated "Readers' Club" section is created to publish high-quality user submissions.
10. Prompt and reliable delivery guaranteed by dedicated delivery personnel.
---
**Post Office Box:** No. 1003
**Subscription Information:**
Subscribers are kindly requested to register at our office at No. 30 Stanley Street, or visit the Leung Kwok Ying Newsstand located at the corner of Kwong Yuen West Street.
**Date:** 24th Day of the 9th Month, Yimao Year (October 31, 1915)
香港時報
Leung Kwok-Ying Newspaper Agency
**Published Today**
Hong Kong Times Daily
**Notice:**
Subscribers from all walks of life are kindly requested to clearly state their delivery address in their correspondence. Daily delivery will be arranged accurately without error. Subscriptions will commence on the fourth day from receipt of notice. This announcement is hereby published.
* **Services:**
* Handling newspaper subscriptions for various ports domestically and overseas.
* Acting as general agents for various provincial newspapers to accept and publish commercial advertisements.
* **Hong Kong P.O. Box:**
P.O. Box No. 1010, Hong Kong.
* **Registered Office Locations:**
* **Hong Kong Office:** No. 25 Bonham Strand East
* **Provincial (Canton) Office:** No. 54 Zhuyang Main Street
**Issued by:**
Leung Kwok-Ying Newspaper Agency
*General Agent for Canton and Hong Kong Newspapers*
**Date:**
24th day of the 9th Lunar Month, Yimao Year [October 31, 1915]
香港華字日報, 1915-11-06
Phenomenon Daily — Scheduled Publication Notice*
**Phenomenon Daily — Scheduled Publication Notice**
This newspaper is scheduled to launch on November 11th (the 5th day of the lunar month).
It will be published daily in one large edition, priced at 60 cents per month.
Subscribers are invited to register at our office at No. 30 Stanley Street, or at the Leung Kwok Ying Newspaper Agency at the corner of Kwong Yuen West Street.
P.O. Box No. 1003
Announced by Hong Kong Phenomenon Daily
*Date: 27th day of the 9th Lunar Month, Yimao Year*
The Phenomenon Daily (現象日報) – November 1915
香港華字日報 1915-11-19
*Chief Editor of *Hong KongTimes* Arrested*
**Chief Editor of *Shi Bao* Arrested**
At a little past 10 o'clock yesterday morning, Chinese Detective Inspector Hou Heng was ordered to proceed to the third floor of Guxiangzhai on Yunwei Street, the editorial office of *Shi Bao* (*The Times*). There, he arrested the newspaper's chief editor, Zhou Yongkang (also known as Zhou Mianzhi, a native of Hunan), and brought him back to the Detective Department for interrogation, after which he was immediately remanded into the main prison.
By yesterday afternoon, Lawyer Brutton personally went to see the Captain Superintendent of Police to request his release on bail, but the request was not granted. It is reported that a final decision can only be made after seeing the Secretary for Chinese Affairs again this morning.
As for the underlying reason for Zhou's arrest, the details remain strictly confidential and impossible to ascertain. However, rumor has it that the wording in his recent editorial articles was extremely intense and went beyond permissible boundaries. Whether this is true remains unknown, but it is recorded here as reported.
香港華字日報 1915-11-19
Editorial: Reflections on the Provincial Officials' Blanket Ban
**Editorial: Reflections on the Provincial Officials' Blanket Ban on the Entry of Hong Kong Newspapers (Continued)**
On Tuesday of this week, newspapers in Guangzhou—such as *An Ya* and *Ren Quan Guo Bao*—all carried a news report regarding the ban on Hong Kong newspapers. The report stated that the Hong Kong press, far from approving the change in the form of state governance, had published detailed criticisms. Having learned of this, the Central Government dispatched a special telegram to Guangdong, stating: "The opinions expressed by Hong Kong newspapers are wild, absurd, and intentionally provocative—clearly the work of malicious elements. Please immediately investigate the native places of the directors of each newspaper, secretly order local authorities to arrest them for trial, temporarily detain their family members, and strictly prohibit the entry of these newspapers into the interior to prevent misleading the public."
When I read this report that day, I merely smiled and set it aside. I believed that such harsh and ruthless methods could only be conceived by the most tyrannical and barbaric imperial autocrats, who would never refrain from executing such measures. Yet to suggest that our nation—at the very beginning of advocating a change in state governance, when it ought to inspire all citizens with grace and benevolence—would willingly resort to extremely venomous actions against news reporters who are merely trivial figures, thereby making ourselves a laughingstock to the world? Therefore, regarding the provincial newspapers' report two days ago about arresting the directors of Hong Kong newspapers and detaining their family members, I simply could not bring myself to believe it. For even if a person were exceptionally ignorant, their actions surely would not exceed the bounds of reason to the extent of recklessly unleashing such outrageous tyranny.
Unexpectedly, three days later, provincial newspapers reported again that high officials had issued an order banning the entry of Hong Kong newspapers. According to the official directive: "It has been learned that Hong Kong newspapers have recently published numerous slanders against the government, especially the newly launched *Shi Bao* (*The Times*). They should immediately be banned altogether from entry and prohibited from sale."
Alas! Banning Hong Kong newspapers on such grounds is indeed excessively narrow-minded. As for the tone of other newspapers, I dare not speak; but as for the opinions consistently held by this newspaper, they are without exception dignified, upright, and grounded in legal principles, seeking to conform to the proper course of civilized endeavors while strictly abiding by the scope of representing public opinion.
Even on the critical issue of changing the form of state governance, although this newspaper has offered suggestions on several occasions, they were mostly based on the common sentiment of the majority of the public—voicing warning words in hopes of averting any potential catastrophe, so that the foundation of the republic might be preserved and sustained. If the opinions of this newspaper were ninety percent contrary to the mindset of the citizens, readers would have long discarded and ignored it; why would local officials need to bother banning it?
Furthermore, since the establishment of this newspaper fifty to sixty years ago, it has always maintained a purely commercial character, with no connection whatsoever to any political faction—a fact well known to all. However, to expand its business, it must first satisfy the public's expectations so that its readership may flourish day by day. Since satisfying the public and serving as their eyes and ears are the sole primary policies of our business, if the public only recognizes a republic, this newspaper naturally must support a republic; if the public only recognizes democracy, this newspaper naturally must support democracy. We have no innate preference for or against any system; our sole function is to gauge the direction of public sentiment and serve as a voice for the public's approval or disapproval.
We never imagined that offering suggestions in this manner would offend the Central Government, nor did we expect that offering such suggestions would lead to accusations of slander from others.
continued
continued
**Corrected Text (Chinese):**
「毀政府」而禁之入口也，寧不大可慨耶？
嗚呼！危言之足以招禍也，由來舊矣。古人之仇視輿論者，莫過於秦皇政，如毀謗者族、偶語者棄市是也。近人之仇視報館者，莫過於陳炯明，如槍斃新聞記者陳聽香是也。彼省吏苟尚有一線是非之心，或尚有半點惻隱之心，吾敢信其未必再蹈秦皇政與陳炯明之覆轍；而但以本報力持正義、不肯苟同之故，而遽加以詆毀政府之名，本報竊不甘受也。且近日籌安會會長楊皙子不云乎：「立憲國當須尊重反對派之言論。」今乃不特不爲尊重，而反加之以箝制，示之以權棒，卽曰真正君憲國，亦豈宜出此乎？記者竊願在官中人之熟思之也。
***
**English Translation:**
"Banning [this newspaper] from entry under the charge of 'defaming the government'—is this not deeply lamentable?
Alas! That outspoken words are enough to bring disaster upon oneself has been true since ancient times. Among the ancients, none held greater hostility toward public opinion than Emperor Shi Huang of Qin, as seen in his decrees executing the whole clans of those who defamed the regime and publicly executing those seen whispering in pairs. Among modern figures, none held greater hostility toward newspaper offices than Chen Jiongming, as seen in his execution of journalist Chen Tingxiang by firing squad.
If those provincial officials still possess even a single thread of discernment between right and wrong, or half a grain of compassion, I dare believe they would not repeat the disastrous mistakes of Qin Shi Huang and Chen Jiongming. Yet, merely because our newspaper firmly upholds justice and refuses to blindly acquiesce, to hastily slap us with the label of 'defaming the government' is something this newspaper humbly refuses to accept.
Furthermore, did not Yang Xizi, president of the Chou'an Hui (Society for Peace Planning), recently state: 'A constitutional nation must respect the opinions of the opposition'? Now, far from showing respect, they instead impose suppression and brandish authorial cudgels. Even if this were called a true constitutional monarchy, how could such actions be appropriate? The writer humbly hopes that those in government will reflect deeply upon this."
香港華字日報 1915-11-23
**Case of the Editor-in-Chief of *The Times* Charged**
**Hong Kong News**
**Case of the Editor-in-Chief of *The Times* Charged**
Chow Yat-yim (周日嚴), alias Chow Wing-hong (周詠康), alias Chow Kwok-lap (周覺立), 26 years of age, a native of Changsha Prefecture, Hunan, and Editor-in-Chief of *The Cape Times* located at No. 16 Wyndham Street, was previously arrested by Chinese Detective Inspector Hau Hang and Detective Sergeant Morrison from the Detective Department and brought before the First Magistrate's Court for trial. Crown Solicitor Mr. Comaroff (柯美士) appeared as public prosecutor for the government.
In the issue of *The Cape Times* published on Friday, November 5th, an editorial titled *"Heroes and Usurpers"* (*英雄與奸雄*) was published, which contained the following excerpt (quoted below as recorded in the newspaper):
> *"Today, holding power over Shanghai... If I stay here a while... when asked about a certain person, I would say he is nothing but a treacherous usurper... Looking back at the events of the past thirty years that had the greatest impact on our nation, none compares to the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 (Jiawu War). Yet in that conflict, it was entirely due to this one man's foolish and arrogant conciliation that China's weaknesses were exposed to the whole world. Is this not characteristic of a treacherous usurper?*
>
> *Following that was the Reform Movement of 1898 (Wuxu Reform). At that time, certain faction leaders conspired against Empress Dowager Cixi to seize authority. Wanting to enlist this man's help, they informed him of their plot in advance. He promised his assistance to their faces, but shortly after, as Ronglu discovered the leak, he used the plot to curry favor with the Empress Dowager and secure his own position, causing the momentum of China's political reform to suffer a major setback. Is this not again characteristic of a treacherous usurper?*
>
> *Following that was the Revolution of 1911 (Xinhai Revolution). After the Wuchang Uprising, all provinces responded like echoes. The Qing court panicked, not knowing what to do. He seized the opportunity to become the Prime Minister of the Cabinet, using the threat of the Revolutionary Army on one hand to intimidate the Qing court, and on the other hand leveraging his position as Provisional President... Is this not the behavior of a treacherous usurper?*
>
> *Following that was the autocratic rule of 1913 (Guai-Chou). It is heard that the Kuomintang members originally had no intention of declaring independence, but because of his usurper-like actions, they were forced into it. He then dispatched troops south to crush them, realizing that once victorious, he could drive the Kuomintang overseas and do whatever he pleased. Is this not yet another act of a treacherous usurper?"*
It is alleged that such statements tend to incite public unrest, jeopardize China's peace and order, and violate Section 1, Clause 15 of the Hong Kong 1907 Ordinance.
When the case was called before the court, the defense solicitor representing the accused was not present. The Crown Solicitor stated to the Magistrate: "I have just received a telegram from defense solicitor Mr. Cho Ng (諸五), stating he is delayed by urgent business and unable to appear on time. Today we can only request Your Honor to adjourn the case." The Magistrate asked if all procedures were ready. The prosecutor replied that all preparations were complete and an interpreter for the Hunan dialect had been appointed. The hearing was adjourned to 3:15 PM.
The Crown Solicitor added: "If defense counsel arrives and requests bail for the defendant, I will not object, leaving it to Your Honor's discretion."
At 3:10 PM, solicitor Mr. Cho Ng arrived in court and expressed deep apologies, explaining he was detained by urgent matters. He requested bail for his client, asking the court for a fair bail amount.
Chief Inspector Morrison rose and stated: "I am instructed to prosecute this case for the Government. If the defendant wishes to be released on bail, a bond of at least $10,000 should be posted."
Solicitor Cho Ng argued that the amount was excessive. The Magistrate subsequently ordered bail to be set at $5,000 pending trial.
香港華字日報 1915-11-29
**Second Hearing of the *Times* Editor Case**
**Second Hearing of the *Times* Editor Case**
At No. 16 Wyndham Street, Zhou Jue, the Editor-in-Chief of the *Times*, was prosecuted by the Government for publishing an article on November 5 that incited public unrest and disturbed the peace of China.
On Saturday morning, the case was re-heard before the Police Magistrate. The Crown Prosecutor appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Government, while Attorney Jones defended the accused. The Crown Prosecutor first presented the facts of the case and submitted an English translation of the article published in the *Times* on November 5 for the Magistrate's review. (As this article was already published during the preliminary hearing of this case, it is omitted here.)
The Court summoned Mr. Wong Po-kee of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, who testified that before the *Times* was established, it was registered at the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs with Zhou Ri-yan listed as the Editor-in-Chief and Ho Pang as the printer. He stated that he had met Ho Pang once in the past. When asked by the Crown Prosecutor whether he would still recognize Ho Pang if he saw him again, he answered no.
Thereupon, Law Kam-chak was called to the stand. He testified that he was a translator at the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, and that he personally translated the article published in the *Times* on the 5th of this month into English and submitted the translation to the court.
Thereupon, Fung Hon was called to testify. He stated that on the day the accused came to the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs with another person to register, he translated the terms of registration into Hunan dialect for the accused to understand, after which the accused signed the name "Zhou Ri-yan." As for his appearance, he had only seen him once, but could still vaguely recognize him.
Thereupon, Sung Ching-kam took the stand and read out the statement made by the accused at the police station on that day as follows: "(This newspaper was not made by me)."
After recording all the testimonies, the Magistrate ruled to adjourn the case until next Saturday morning at 10:00 AM for further trial. Bail conditions remain unchanged.
香港華字日報 1915-12-06
deemed sufficient to disturb the peace and order of China.
**Case of *The Times* Editor Prosecuted**
Chow Kak-chi, the editor-in-chief of *The Times* located at No. 16 Wyndham Street, was prosecuted by the Government on the grounds that on November 5th he published an article entitled "On Heroes and Traitors," which was deemed sufficient to disturb the peace and order of China.
On Saturday morning, the case was brought before Magistrate Line for hearing. Crown Solicitor Gomes appeared for the prosecution, while Solicitor Jones appeared for the defense.
Magistrate Line stated: "It is the view of this Court—as the Attorney General previously noted—that cases of this nature cannot be decided immediately."
Solicitor Jones replied: "I agree."
The Magistrate further added: "If there are doubtful points in this case, we shall refrain from further argument for now; otherwise, the case must be referred for a detailed report."
The Magistrate then remanded the case until Monday to be brought before the court again, setting a date for re-trial.
香港華字日報 1915-12-09
Trial Date Set for Editor-in-Chief of *The Times***
**Trial Date Set for Editor-in-Chief of *The Eastern Times***
Zhou Yongkang, a reporter for *The Times* (also known as Zhou Juezhi), was accused in a case involving the publication of an editorial that incited the Chinese public. The court has scheduled to reconvene at the left bench for his trial today at 11:30 AM.
香港華字日報 1915-12-10
Former Revolutionary Party leader Hu Hanmin and former Admiral S
**News of Hu Hanmin's Recent Arrival in Manila**
*(A letter from Manila reports:)*
Former Revolutionary Party leader Hu Hanmin and former Admiral Song Sheng arrived in Manila from Yokohama aboard the *Tenyo Maru* on Friday. Because they did not hold entry permits, they were detained by customs officials; however, they were released on November 30.
The two arrived in Manila on the 18th, stating that their purpose was to inspect political, social, and educational conditions. Following an investigation by the Customs Special Board of Inquiry, they were initially denied permission to land due to their lack of entry permits. However, because Hu and Song were conducting political investigations and serving as chief editors of a Yokohama newspaper—thus not belonging to the laborer class—the authority ultimately recognized them as members of the Chinese upper class and granted them permission to reside freely in Manila.
While in Manila, Song Sheng stated that he was 29 years old. Following the revolution, he served in Fuzhou as Customs Inspector, Superintendent of the Naval Academy, and Naval Commander. Later, when the Chinese government identified him as a member of Sun Yat-sen’s party, he fled to Yokohama to run a newspaper.
Hu Hanmin stated that he was 36 years old. In the first year of the Republic of China, he served as the Military Governor of Guangdong. He later resigned over opposition to financial policies and subsequently fled to Yokohama.
香港華字日報 1915-12-10
**The Case of the *Times* Editor-in-Chief Accused**
**The Case of the *Times* Editor-in-Chief Accused**
Yesterday morning on the 9th, during the re-hearing at the Magistracy, Chow Wing-hong (also known as Chow Kwok-chi), Editor-in-Chief of *Times*, was prosecuted by the Hong Kong Government for publishing an editorial titled *"Heroes and Villains"* on November 5th, which contained text inciting disturbances to the public peace of China.
On that day, Mr. Ormsby (Crown Prosecutor) appeared for the Government, while Mr. Pollock and another counsel appeared as defense attorneys for Mr. Chow.
The Magistrate first called Ho Bun, agent of the Ding Shun Bookstore at No. 144 Hollywood Road, to testify. Ho stated that he had little to do with *San Po* other than printing the newspaper for them.
The Magistrate advised him: "As the printer of *San Po*, if there are articles that disturb public order, you should also be held responsible, and the Government may prosecute you according to the law. Today you appear as a witness, but if the Crown Prosecutor cross-examines you and you fear your answers may incriminate you, you have the right to decline to answer without prevarication."
Crown Prosecutor Ormsby then asked him: "Who commissioned you as the printer?"
Answer: "It was Ng King-yiu."
Question: "Did you sign a sworn statement at the Registrar's Office?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "Do you know the defendant Chow Kwok-chi?"
Answer: "Although I have interacted with him, he is from Hunan, and we could not understand each other's dialect, so I did not know whether he was Chow Kwok-chi himself."
Crown Prosecutor Ormsby then showed him two copies of *San Po* published on November 4th and 5th, and asked Ho Bun: "Were the newspapers for these two days printed at your shop?"
Answer: "Yes."
At this point, Mr. Edwin Richard Hallifax, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, took the stand and testified that prior to this prosecution, two formal warnings had been issued to the defendant against publishing articles or news that might disturb the public peace of China.
After his testimony, Mr. Lau Tsz-ping, Chief Clerk of the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs, testified:
"I recall that Mr. Hallifax summoned the defendant to the office twice, though I cannot recall the exact dates. On the first occasion, Mr. Hallifax instructed me to translate his words to the defendant, saying: 'Your newspaper must henceforth be careful not to discuss matters concerning Chinese political relations. If there are statements inciting disturbances to public order, the Hong Kong Government may initiate prosecution.' At that time, the defendant replied that they represented public opinion. Mr. Hallifax further admonished him: 'If you print text that disrupts public order at will, that will not be permitted. If there is anything unclear, you may come see me again. I have summoned you today specifically to warn you. Do not act like this in the future.' The defendant assented and withdrew."
The Magistrate asked: "Was the first occasion also about publishing unlawful statements?"
Answer: "Yes."
The Magistrate asked again: "What kind of editorial was it?"
Answer: "It was one calling on the people of the whole nation to unite all forces to resist the government."
Defense Counsel Pollock asked: "When you translated, did you tell the defendant that his future writings must be cautious, and that any articles harmful to public order should no longer be published?"
Answer: "Yes."
Question: "Did you mean specifically the items published in that newspaper?"
At this point, the Magistrate ordered the case adjourned until 3:00 PM in the afternoon to resume court and conduct examination. After detailed cross-examination by Defense Counsel Pollock, the Magistrate remanded the defendant until 10:00 AM next Tuesday for further hearing, with bail granted.
for no reason
This case was especially meaningful for present cases in Hong Kong, but for no reasons Wah Zhi Newspaper stopped reporting the case after Dec., 10 ,at least up to the end of 1915.
Dec., 17 , 1915
**Correction Notice**
**Correction Notice**
In a previous issue, our newspaper published an article regarding the organizations named in the confession of the rebel party, which was reprinted from the provincial newspaper. We have now received two letters—one from Yi Yin-shi and another from Attorney Mi-wei—stating that Chen Yuebo is a law-abiding citizen who was merely an employee at Liyuan Wine Company (the licensed wine distributor in the provincial capital) and has never had any connection with the rebels.
Note: It is very common for different people to share the same name in this world. Based on the information provided in the letters, the person named in the rebel party's confession must be a different individual.
***
**Worth Watching**
At the Empire Theatre opposite Central Market, a variety show featuring grand magic performances has been staged over the past two nights. It drew a large crowd, and the audience gathered and praised it immensely. Tonight, a brand-new program will be presented, which promises to be even more delightful to watch.
Document Analysis & Highlights
Document Analysis & Highlights
🏛️ Crucial Historical Context (1915)
Sir Henry Pollock’s Hidden 1915 Legal Battle for Colonial Press
香港華字日報, 1915-10-30
Historical Analysis & Global Network
February 22, 1916
The Forbidden Pages: How Beijing Tried to Block Hong Kong's Most Advanced Anti-Imperial Daily
On February 22, 1916, the Beijing Metropolitan Police Department issued a sweeping decree. They officially banned the Hong Kong-based newspaper The Phenomenon Daily (現象日報) from entering or circulating anywhere within mainland China. [1, 2]
The charge was simple: the publication was deemed a direct threat to public order and "detrimental to public peace" (有礙治安) under the regime of dictator Yuan Shikai. [1, 2]
Here is how a single newspaper office in Central, Hong Kong, terrified an empire. [1, 2]
High Tech Meets Political Rebellion
Launched in November 1915 from its main editorial offices at 30 Stanley Street, Central, The Phenomenon Daily was not a typical early-century underground circular. It was a cutting-edge media operation that weaponized modern technology against tyranny: [1, 2]
Targeting the "Treasonous Monarch"
The paper's primary mission was to crush Yuan Shikai's Hongxian Empire crisis. As Yuan heavily censored, arrested, and executed mainland journalists to clear his path to the throne, The Phenomenon Daily used its safety under British colonial jurisdiction to unleash fierce rhetoric against the "resurrection of the imperial monarchy". [1]
Because the Beiyang military police could not cross into Hong Kong to smash the printing presses at Stanley Street, they resorted to banning the paper from the mainland postal and customs network on February 22, 1916. [1, 2]
Why this 1916 Ban Echoes Through History
The banning of The Phenomenon Daily represents a crucial chapter in the history of Chinese media and the Guichou Press Disaster (癸丑報災). [1]
While the ban cut off the paper's legal circulation to mainland readers, it backfired. It drove the publication underground, turning copies of The Phenomenon Daily into high-value contraband smuggled across the border via secret revolutionary networks to fuel the National Protection War. [1]