THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 17TM NOVEMBER, 1866. 455
I therefore mean to use the power (Section 28) of lowering the fees leviable under the Ordinance, whenever I have reason to be satisfied with the general conduct of the Owners and Consignees of licensed vessels, and when I am convinced that they are doing their utmost to assist in carrying out the Law-and promoting the objects of recent legislation-In such cases I hope to diminish by one half or more, after the first dozen trips, the amount of fees payable by licensed Junks.
In no case are these fees imposed through desire of gain by this Government-but simply] because the audacious robberies committed by Chinese vessels have made it necessary to compel all vessels of that nation visiting this harbor to report to, and communicate frequently with, the authorities. Now, if this has to be done at all, the Memorialists, as men of business, must know that it cannot be accomplished so regularly by any other system as by one of passes and clearances- because the small payments required in each case render all parties accountable for money either received or paid, and thereby ensure punctuality and exactitude in the conduct and record of all proceedings.
Meantime, I would remind Memorialists that they are entirely mistaken in supposing that a security of 1,500 Dollars is required to obtain a License. The Ordinance (Section 26) only says. that no Bond for more than 1,500 Dollars shall be required as security. Any less sum-when there is no ground for suspicion-may be accepted. Thus even so low a security as $20 or $50 might possibly suffice in some cases.
Memorialists are also in error in thinking that any higher payment than $5 for an annual fishing license, or 50 cents for a monthly license, is leviable from mere fishing boats-whilst under Section XXIX a license may be granted to every fishing vessel, subject to such conditions and conveying such privileges as the Harbor Master with approval of Governor may arrange. Under that Section therefore a means is afforded-when the Ordinance is in operation-of remedying every real hard- ship that may be proved.
As for the penalties finally falling on the vessel and cargo guilty of infringing the Law, that is not an undue hardship,--because it is easy to obey the Law-if the intentions of the Owners and Master of a vessel be honest. There is also an appeal always to the Governor, and it is so impro- bable that an Officer of the British Government would exact a penalty harshly or unjustly, that the Memorialists cannot be really alarmed at the risk which any honest trader incurs through that provision. If they still are apprehensive they had better use additional precautions when inquiring into the character of the Masters and Owners of the vessel in which they embark their property.
The remarks of the Memorialists as to the inconvenience which the carriage of large painted Numbers on their vessels might occasion in other Ports, are worthy of attention; and I shall revise this regulation if, on communicating with the Chinese authorities, I find reason to do so. Never- theless it is evident that some external sign of their being licensed Junks should be borne by those vessels and to be useful, that such sign should be easily recognizable and difficult to obliterate.
Having thus disposed of the objections urged by Memorialists against the Harbor and Coast Ordinance, I now proceed to consider their objections to the Registration Ordinance, and observe thuu the Memorialists still show a very imperfect knowledge of some of the topics to which they advert.
Thus when they say each Householder is obliged to furnish a list of his monthly tenants, they represent this as being a great hardship,-although every Householder has a list for his own use, and though if he cannot give complete information about each monthly tenant, he can at least state all he knows, and nothing more is required from him. If there be a difficulty in doing this, it is a difficulty which he must endeavour to overcome.
Memorialists also seek to convey an impression that the Ordinance, by imposing eventually on the Householder the onus of paying the fines of parties residing in his house when guilty of a certain class of offences, leaves him no remedy-whereas Section XVII expressly enables him to recover such fines from the real offenders. I disagree with the Memorialists as to the hardship of this legislation. It is partly borrowed from the spirit of many Chinese penal Laws, and partly from the principle of English Law, which in some cases throws on Counties and Districts the cost of damage to personal property and unusual charges for Police occasioned by the misconduct of Individuals within such Counties or Districts. Thus it imposes on each Householder or his Agent merely the duty of seeing that his tenants yield obedience to certain Laws of the Country which shelters and protects them. He can do this much better than any paid Officers of the Executive, and if he does his best to assist the Government in carrying out the Law, he may rely on it that the Law will not deal hardly with him.
It is moreover not true that the mere impossibility of paying a fine will tempt any, who can shift its payment on others, to violate the Law-because it is provided that parties offending against the Ordinances shall not merely be liable to fines, but shall also, in default of payment, be liable to Imprisonment with Hard Labor.
Further, the arrest of a man's family in China till surrender of the guilty member is not a parallel case with the Householder's payment in the first instance of a fine by an absconding tenant-because whilst a man's family can have no control over his actions, and may be a thousand miles away when he