THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 17TH NOVEMBER, 1866. 453
of
the amount of the fine inflicted all they have to do is to express their inability to pay it, in which case the Government will call upon the Landlord to do so. But besides this Your Petitioners fail to see why a Mortgagee in possession, who had only lent money on the House and Land, and who collects the rents thereof to pay himself the interest on the amount lent, should be deprived of the same as is laid down under Section XIX, because some person living therein may have committed an offence under certain specified Ordinances. It would be impossible for the Landlord or Mortgagee to maintain such a supervision over the inmates of his houses as to prevent the commission of any these offences, and this oppressive law, if carried out, will cause the value of landed property to decrease most materially, especially, since Landlords are now called upon to pay the Police, Lighting and Water Rates for their houses, whether occupied or not. Your Petitioners would respectfully beg to be informed whether in the case of a person who having become a Householder and having under Section VII, reported the same to the Registrar General and received from that Officer a Certificate under Section IX, should remove from such house and subsequently become Householder of another Tenement, will be called upon to obtain and pay for a new Registration Certificate.
Your Petitioners cannot conclude this, to them grave subject, without taking the liberty to allude to the repugnance which Europeans have always expressed against the unjust system of the Chinese Officials, in arresting and punishing the members of a man's family who may have committed an offence, and, who has escaped capture. Your Petitioners with all respect beg to submit that the confiscation of a Junk and her Cargo for an offence committed by the Master, (he not being the Owner,) under Ordinance Number 6 of 1866, and the infliction of fines upon the Landlords of houses whose tenants may have committed offences under certain specified Ordinances, as contained in Ordinance Number 7 of 1866, appears to Your Petitioners to be open to the same objection.
As regards the Licensing of Money Changers under Ordinance Number 8 of 1866, Your Petitioners would beg in the first place to bring to the notice of Your Excellency the fact that all Grocers shops may be looked upon in the light of Money Changers shops; because the nature of their business is such that all the money taken by them each day is in copper cash, which is exchanged by them for silver, in order to enable them to make remittances to the mainland for purchasing fresh stock-this practice is the more necessary since the Hongkong copper cash being only current in the Colony, the Grocers cannot send this coin for the purchase of their supplies. The same may be said of retail Prepared Opium dealers who, receiving only copper cash during the day, are obliged to exchange it for silver with which to purchase fresh stock. These persons are thus compelled to change their cash in this way, although frequently at a loss in the exchange; and Your Petitioners conceive that it would be a great hardship that they should be compelled to apply for Licenses to enable them to change their cash, particularly as they change it with the actual Money Changer, who gives silver in order that he may procure cash to give in exchange again to persons requiring it, the profits derived from this small business is barely sufficient to enable a man to pay his rent and obtain a livelihood, and many who are now engaged in it could ill afford to pay the License fee, which, if they are conpelled to do, will oblige them to give up their business. Your Petitioners therefore trust that the Grocers and Opium dealers may not be looked upon as Money Changers, and they further feel certain, that, the number of actual Money Changers will be so reduced that it would not be worth the trouble of the Government to insist that Licenses should be granted at all.
Your Petitioners would take the liberty to offer some remarks regarding Sections IX and X of the Ordinance now under consideration, and particularly with respect to the article of "condiments." They beg to bring to the notice of Your Excellency that a large portion of Chinese "condiments" is looked upon by Europeans, if not actually as "tainted," adulterated," or "unwholesome," is certainly considered "noxious," this is a well known fact, and one commonly talked about by Europeans. In all Grocers shops where these "condiments" are sold by retail, and other places where they are made large quantities will be found-these "condiments" though offensive to the European taste and smell are not so to the Chinese, and are in daily use amongst them, either as delicacies or necessaries.—If Informers are to be entitled to one half of the fine inflicted on persons convicted of this offence Your Petitioners look with much anxiety to the continual annoyance, if not hardship and oppression to which Grocers and others will be subjected by having their houses searched upon information given. by some person anxious to make gain if by chance a conviction could be obtained,-and further as these "condiments" are so "noxious" to Europeans, the Shopkeeper may be fined for proffering for sale an article said to be "noxious;" but to a Chinese, not only considered "wholesome," but probably is in such state a necessary of life. Your Petitioners make no objection whatever to the law taking its course as regards "tainted" "adulterated" or "unwholesome" liquor or meat or provisions, which Your Petitioners consider just and proper.
After the explanation contained in the reply, which Your Excellency so graciously condescended to make to Your Petitioners' first Petition, to the effect that if our houses are kept clean and free from smells that our families will not be troubled by visits from the Health Officer, they feel contented and satisfied that no undue exercise of this power will be made so as to cause alarm to their wives and families.
P
With respect to Ordinance Number 9 of 1866 Your Petitioners have no remark to make except that as the object of it is the prevention of the crime of Piracy, and the punishment of all persons in
མགར་!H28#ངན་གལ་ཆEམ་ལུགས