September 18, 1909.]
there is nobody who does not recognise the, necessity for revenue, and I cannot conceive any person who, after calm consideration, can object to any clauses in the Bill which are re- quired to make the Bill effective for its purpose of collecting revenue. I do not think that any person who recognises that it is right and proper to impose an import duty cannot agree that it is essential to carry that principle into effect and exercise checks and inflict punishments where these checks are evaded. We, therefore, propose in the Bill to give power to a Magistrate to issue a search warrant to examine premises in which he has reason to believe liquors are concealed. This is not peculiar to Hongkong, as there is no country in the world where right of search does not exist. There is certainly not a Colony in which that power does not exist. It is necessary to prevent the smuggling of dutiable goods. In this Colony we have the principle applied to the prevention of the smuggling of arms and ammunition. I will leave it to the Council to imagine what value the Prohibition of Arms and Ammunition Ordinance would have, if we simply prohibited the practice and gave no powers to prevent the smuggling. With respect to the liquor law, the provision we propose merely gives to the Magistrate power on proper information laid before him to issue a search warrant. This constitutes a safeguard, as the Magistrate will have to be satisfied with the information before he issues a warrant. Of course, the man whose house is searched has always his remedy if there be no justification for the search, and the Bill provides compensation in cases where a search has been made and nothing has been found to justify the search. But, Sir, this principle is not new. Every Magis trate in the Colony has power to have the house of anyone sitting round this table searched if a person of repute lays before him any information that stolen goods are therein secreted. It does not follow that because the goods are secreted in my house that I am a thief. Frequently in my experience houses have been searched for goods secreted there which were stolen by the servants or their friends. It would be the height of folly to say that it would be unjust that such a right should be given, and it would be absurd to ask the Government to prohibit this right to issue search warrants because it was offensive to have a policeman come to the house. It is only a weapon placed in the hands of the law for the more effective enforcement of the law for the protection of the property of the individual. This power is for the protection of the Govern- ment, and therefore of the public. There is nothing objectionable in such a power being given. The Council is stultifying itself if it passes the law authorising the raising of revenue, and then refuses to pass the measures essential to that law being carried out. I do not expect any serious opposition to the principle of this Bill, and in Committee we can discuss these clauses to which I have referred. The words “domiciliary visits" have been used by some, but the persons who used them did so in a sense which did not belong to them. A domiciliary visit is a visit much
as are made in certain foreign countries by the police without obtaining any warrant on sworn infor- mation, entering houses and searching them for papers and other things. That is meant by domiciliary visits, and it is an abuse of language to describe the visit paid by the constable hold- ing a warrant issued by the Magistrate on sworn information as a domiciliary visit. It is a search by the police in the execution of the law. Sir, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill
→
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
:
On the 13th August last when the resolution was introduced into this Council it was estimated that the revenue which would be derived from the operation of that resolution would amount to something like two and a half lakhs, whereas to-day we are bringing before the Council a Bill to impose import duties by which it is estimated that the revenue derived under its operation will amount to perhaps seven or eight lakhs or even, as the hon. member for the Chamber of Commerce had said, perhaps ten lakhs. The question is: Why, if two and a half lakhs were considered sufficient in the first instance, is the taxpayer being asked to pay so much more towards the revenue? In the first place I will address myself as briefly as possible in reply to that ques- tion. I would remind you that when I introduced the Budget last year I pointed out that by appropriating for the revenue of the year the sum of $371,500, the capital amount of Widows' and Orphans' Fund, together with the amount which the Govern- ment paid as interest on that sum and equalisa- tion of exchange, we incurred a total liability of $421,500. In addition to this the Budget did not balance by $72,170, or, taking the two together, $494,000, or, roughly speaking, five lakhs. This was the amount of the deficit of last year, which we have to make good in estimating for next year. To this we have to add whatever deficit may accrue on the lower tenders for the Opium Farm than we have hitherto 'received. From that loss we can deduct whatever sum the Imperial Government gives us as a substantial part of our loss. It has been estimated that we lose five lakhs on opium. If the Imperial Government were to give us half that sum there would still remain two and a half lakhs to make good. When I proposed the resolution on August 13th had no anticipation that the increase then suggested would meet this very large debt, but I considered it was the maximum by which the fees could possibly be raised. I cannot estimate yet with any precision what the deficit will be when we have completed the Estimates for next year. It depended in part upon the tender for the Opium Farm, and in part upon the contribution of the Im- perial Government. I had hoped that with two and a half lakhs from the increase of liquor licence fees, together with considerable retrenchments, together, also, with some further savings, which I had hoped will be considerable, and which I will explain in a week or two when I have the pleasure of introducing the Budget for next year. I hope from these various sources should meet, or nearly meet, the five lakhs' deficit on last year's revenue. That leaves the loss from the opium practically untouched. It would, therefore, have been necessary had we passed that resolution to have devised some further means for meeting any deficit which might result from opium Now, as regards the profit on import duties which we propose under this Bill, you will no doubt all agree with me that all persons engaged in the liquor trade who have at the present time
retain these liquor in the Colony in any stocks of for sale in the Colony duty free. If they have stocks intended for export it is natural that they should retain them, and fur- ther stocks to replace them would be ordered. I think it is very probable, therefore, that the revenue derived from import duties during the year 1910.will be less than the ordinary amount, and we should not estimate it at more than seven and a half lakhs From that you must take a sum for the creation of the machinery the staff collecting the duties-which will prob- ably amount to the best part of another lakh, leaving, roughly, six and a half lakhs to meet the five lakhs' deficit on last year's estimate, in addition to the opium last. Looking to retrenchments which we have been able to effect, and other savings alluded to, hope that this sum will meet our requirements next year, and I hope it will leave us a little to the good, but you will see yourselves that the margin is not large. With regard to the following year, 1911, I would remind you that in that year we have to meet the interest on
that
we
247
the
we must anticipate a further sum on that account. Therefore, at the end of 1911 we will have some six lakhs to meet for railway ex- penses, and if the duties derived from this Bill considerably increase in that year, when an staff has been created and efficient when existing stocks of liquor in
have been Colony
consumed, I think you will agree with me that there is not too large a margin to meet the increased cost due to the undertaking of the railway. I have made these few remarks with your consent and concurrence before any hon. members who wish to speak have done so, because I think that in all probability, having cleared the financial position, many arguments and questions which otherwise would have been propounded will now be rendered unnecessary.
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI-Sir, up till this morning it was not my intention to speak on the second reading of this will, but after listening to the remarks of the learned Attorney-General, which showed that there was more than one principle in the Bill first, the principle with regard to the levying of a tax on intoxicating liquors, and secondly, the principle of enforcing the law concerning the levying of those duties-I am left no choice but to speak. However much I approve of the principle of levying duties on intoxicating liquors, I do not approve of the principles the drastic principles of enforcing, and especially of detection. From this you will see, Sir, that I refer to sections 31 and 35. Those sections give power to the Government to order a search of the baggage of all persons land- ing in this Colony, and also to enter every business place, and every domestic home in the Colony. Now, Sir, the Attorney-General seemed to make light of those provisions. He said that they were not only necessary, but could not be offensive; he also said that they exist in the Ordinance at Singapore. But he forgets to tell us that in Singapore the provisions are in con- nection with the Opium Farm, and that the firm that has the opium monopoly also run the Spirit Farm. These powers of search for the detection of contraband goods are not new in Hongkong. į They are already conferred on the Opium Farmer and his excisemen. Every house here could be visited by night or day under warrant, and also every person landing in the Colony could be searched, as well as his luggage. At the same time, in connection with the working of was unnecessary, this law, we thought it at this stage particularly, for us to consider those measures. I understand from Your Ex- cellency that it is your particular wish that this Bill should pass the Council quickly, but with these two clauses in, I am afraid that the discussion on them would involve some con- siderable time, and that the quick passage of the Bill will be delayed. I understand, Sir, further, that if this Ordinance is passed very soon afterwards a consolidating Ordinance will be introduced. I submit, therefore, that the two clauses 31 and 35 should be deleted from the present Bill, and if, after further consideration, they are thought necessary, they can be introduced in the consoli-
to bring into force these parts, as there is no dating Ordinance. There is no necessity, Sir, machinery to put them in action at once. That is one of the reasons why I oppose the retention of these two clauses. Further, Sir, in our various conferences on the provisions of this Ordinance, or the desirability of passing an Ordinance of this kind, I thought it stood that there was no necessity for anti- cipating any difficulty in the detection of smuggling of spirits into this Colony, and that it would not be necessary to institute searches in private houses, and also in places of business. In fact, even if we were to institute such searches, and to find liquor on the premises searched, it would be extremely difficult for us to prove that it was smuggled, and it would be equally impossible for the owners to prove that these liquors had had duty paid on them, and to give reasons for their being on the premises. Liquor, unlike opium, is kept by nearly every householder in the Colony, Euro- pean and Chinese alike. Once liquor is import- ted into the Colony without paying duty, it is almost impossible to detect it, and to bring the
was under.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded. HIS EXCELLENCY-Gentlemen,-It is usual for the President of this Council to reserve any observations he may have to make until any hon, members who desire to speak have done so, but on this occasion, with the consent of the Council, I propose to make a few remarks regarding the financial position without for- feiting my privilege of closing the debate. I do so because it has been represented to me by the unofficial members that it will facilitate capital account of the railwast on one crime home to the smuggler. Therefore, these pro- matters if I make some explanations as to the financial position. I take it that the question which is in the mind of a good many members of this Council is, I believe, somewhat as follows:
million sterling; also that the sinking fund comes into operation in that year. More over, very few railways built have paid their working expenses in the first year, so that
visions will do very little good, but, on the other, hand will become a source of irritation to a large number of the inhabitants; so much so that they will have a tendency of exciting