Cond
to have offended against the provisions of the Ordinance – but the Enactment does not prescribe within what limits such seizure and detention should take place.
The exercise of this power, however, is made to depend upon the special instruction and authority of the Superintendent, whose attention should be called to the Enactment in order that he
may confine its operation
within the proper
limits of jurisdiction.
Upon this point I am
to state that
presuming it to be the intention of the
+ vessels Engaged
Ordinance that
in the
prohibited trade should be seized and
such seizure detained whilst at sea, detention could not lawfully take place more than 100 miles from the coast of China, which is the extreme limit of the legislative authority conferrable under the powers of 6,7 Victoria Cap 80.
I am also to notice the 8th Section of the
Ordinance, which is as follows:-
"And be it further Enacted, that all ships or vessels sailing under the British Flag, which shall have been employed in
any way
to offend against the Provisions of this Ordinance, shall, together with their Cargoes be liable to be seized and sold, to satisfy any penalty incurred by such Employment and that all Bills of Sale, Mortgages and other Transfers of property therein made,
such vessel having been so unlawfully employed, within three months from the time suit having been commenced against Owner or Master thereof, for any offence against this Ordinance, or made whatsoever to the knowledge of the purchaser
with
time
to avoid the recovery of the
penalties herein provided, shall, as against
the said liability to be sold for the purposes aforesaid, be void and of None effect"
The latter portion of this Enactment may create insecurity to titles to vessels unless confined to transfers or mortgages after seizure,
or to transfers mortgages made
before