this Clause is framed to meet the great difficulties with respect to evidence, which always arise when an offence is committed in a foreign Country and the proceeding has to be instituted in Hong Kong.
But it is not understood why distinctions are taken between proceedings upon the bond and other proceedings under the Act.
Why should not the declaration of the Commander of one of Her Majesty's ships be received in evidence in both cases alike?
Before finally settling this section, it may be desirable to refer to the 270th Clause of the Merchant Shipping Act 1854, which gives considerable facilities for producing depositions made in Foreign Countries and in the Colonies.
11. Lastly, it appears doubtful whether the Bill as framed contains provisions which will sufficiently meet the case of a fraudulent breach of contract made with the Emigrants. Instances have occurred where the original Contracts have been forcibly taken from them and others substituted, and it is deserving of consideration whether, as above suggested, fraudulent substitution of Contracts, or a fraudulent change in the destination of the voyage should not render the Ships liable to forfeiture or be otherwise severely punished, and whether the Emigration Officer should not be required to retain duplicates of the original Contracts and provision be made for obtaining evidence from Emigration fees at the port of destination.
Page 60
Page 61