569
to legislate for it at all. It is omitted both from the present bill and from the regulations in the First Schedule to the bill, because it is thought that the matter may be left to departmental arrangement.
(b) Section 6 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1891 gives power to make regulations, but that power is limited. It is enlarged in the bill. For example, power is given to the Governor in Council to exempt any specified vessel or class of ship from the operation of the Ordi-
nance.
(c) Section 7 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1891 provides a penalty for contraventions of section 3 of that Ordinance, but no penalty is provided for breaches of regulations made under the Ordi-
nance.
(d) The same section 7 makes "the agent and the consignee of such vessel" liable in the absence of the master. It fails to provide for the case where the ship has an owner in the Colony and no agent. Further the reference to "the consignee of such vessel" is perhaps a mis- take, though a general consignee of a ship is not unknown.
(e) The same section 7 unnecessarily deals with the question of the term of imprisonment which may be imposed in default of payment of the fine, a matter which is dealt with generally in section 57 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890.
(f) Section 8 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1891 provides unnecessarily for the case of persons who assist in contraventions of section 3 of the Ordinance. The question of aiders and abet- tors is dealt with generally by section 37 of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890.
4. In view of these further points it was decided to repeal the present Ordinance and to re-enact it with variations. Most of these variations have been im- pliedly explained above.
44
5. The difficulty of bringing home to individuals any particular contravention of the Ordinance seems to call for some special remedy for the protection of the revenue. Clause 3 (2) of the bill, therefore, provides that if any cargo is worked on any ship contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance, the master, and the owners, charterers, (if any) and agents of the ship in question shall be deemed to have incurred a debt to the Crown equal to twice the amount of the Sunday permit fee for the ship in question. The reference in this sub-clause to forfeiture" is inserted in order to made the debt in question recoverable by the pro- cedure laid down in Ordinance No. 6 of 1875. It is possible that section 7 of the present Ordinance makes master and agents liable criminally even in the absence of guilty knowledge, but it is considered that the case does not justify a provision of this exceptional nature, and that it is more appropriate to make the master, owners, etc., liable to pay double the usual permit fee if the Ordinance is contravened, on the ground that it is their duty to see that the revenue is not defrauded in a matter over which they have or should have con- trol.
6. Clause 6 of the bill lays down that the fee for any given Sunday permit must in general be paid within seven days after the date of issue, but it also provides that the fee shall not be payable if the holder satisfies the Harbour Master that no cargo was received on board, loaded, worked, or discharged, on or from the