110
15
14
The Hongkong ment Gazette,
fered with.
I had not the slighest idea who would get the privilege until the Governor decide the present holder. I did not know whether the Gove might strike out the tenders received on Sunday, My not the list of tenders referred to the Governor, seems rathe point out that the second on the list might be favourably sidered. To shew how little I knew myself who would ob the Opium License, I may mention, that on Friday the March, the day preceding the closing of the tenders, I h long conversation in John Burd & Co.'s office, with Mr B and a Chinaman whom I found there. I put down in fig the result of my inquiries and calculations as to the prob revenue from the Monopoly, the consequence of this was the fifth highest tender, which is $8,640 above any of t below, is from John Burd & Co.'s comprador.
Adjourned till Wednesday next at 3 P.M.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairma
Meeting of Committee on Wednesday, 19th May inst at 3 P.M.
Present, Both Members.
Adjourned till Saturday next at 3 P.M.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairma
On Saturday, 22d May, the Meeting was adjourned thro the Clerk of the Councils, by order of the Chairman Wednesday, the 26th May instant, at 10.30 A.M.
Wednesday, 26th May instant, at 10.30 a.m.
Present, Both Members.
[Read Two Letters from Mr Hoey, annexed, (J.K.)↑ HENRY KINGSMILL, Esq.,-Called in and examined By the Chairman,--I was counsel for Chun-tai-kwong a case before you, in which Chun-tai-kwong was complaini and Mr Hoey defendant. Mr Hoey stated on cross-exam tion by me, that Dr Bridges had a personal interest in Opium Monopoly. I asked him whether, when he was je the Government Offices to execute the bond, he had told Bridges that he (Hoey) was to be a partner in the Monope He said "No." I asked him whether it was intended at time he was to be a partner. He said "Yes." him if he ever told Dr Bridges that he was a partner. He s he did on the day on which the Caribbean case had been hea before you. I asked him why he had not mentioned this to Bridges before. He gave no direct answer, and then giving toss of his head said, "the fact of it is, Dr Bridges has a pe sonal interest in it himself." He said this in an angry wa I said, "there, Mr Hoey, that's quite enough, that's a questi with which we have nothing to do here;" my impression is the you rather seconded my observation.
I then asi
Chairman. As Acting Attorney General from 22d Juž last to December, I drafted an Ordinance for the Monopoly the Sale of Opium. This, I think, was about the 10th December; it was not confined to prepared Opium. In recei ing my instructions for the drafting, I only communicate to the Acting Colonial Secretary, I did not communicate wit anyone else-Chinese or other.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.-Re-called and examing Chairman.-I wish to draw your attention to the last edit But one of the Opium Monopoly Ordinance, published in Gazette of the 27th February last, and to the Ordinance finally passed on the 17th March last, and published in Gazette of the 20th March. There are great alterations. you point out the alterations to the Committee, and explain their effect.
Wil
एलर
[JUNE 19, 1858.
JUNE 19, 1858.]
lations, and I think those of Java. I redrew Mr Kings- draft, changing the arrangement, and making it applic. to all Opium raw or prepared, saleable in quantities of than one Chest. I sent in this draft, I think, about the or 15th December. It was then laid before the Council, a first time, and printed, December, 1857. On the first Ing of the Bill, I opposed it in its principle, and in every of its details, distinguishing as I always do between my duties as draftsman, and as Legislative Councillor. If ed, it would have effectually destroyed a retail trade in Opium, as well as in prepared Opium, both being to be ded in the Opium privilege, and the Sub-licenses, and ng with them in any other way being prohibited under the alties contained in the 6th Section, without Benefit of orari. [Minute-Book of Legislative Council produced by Clerk of the Councils.] The first reading took place on $26th of December, 1857, as appears by the Minute-Book produced; and on the 5th January, 1858, I learn from same Minute-Book, that the debate on the Ordinance was urned to that day fortnight. It appears by the next y that, down to this time, it had not been published general information; for the next entry of the same is an order to that effect proposed by the Acting Colonial retary, and seconded by the Chief Magistrate. It was e published in the Gazette of the 9th January, it was read econd time on the 19th January, but on the opposition he Honourable Mr Dent, the Committee on the Ordinance postponed till the 16th of February, and immediately forwards the resolution of which you have the draft was yed by me for taking evidence if offered. On the suggestion er of His Excellency or the Acting Colonial Secretary, mbers understood that the names of any witnesses to be ermined on the 16th February were to be sent in, on or ore the 13th February. There was no Meeting of the Legis. Tre Council on the 16th February, but there was one on the h February, when the Acting Colonial Secretary stated that, mature consideration, Government had decided to confine application of the Ordinance to prepared Opium, and to ex- it by making it applicable to all such Opium whether sold in e or small quantities. The exemption of raw Opium was ed to be a concession to the opposition made to the Ordi ce by the community, and particularly by the opposition mbers of Council but inasmuch as no evidence pursuant he resolution had been brought forward by any member of Council or of Government to justify the remaining restric.
I continued to oppose them, His Excellency was sed to state in reply, that he was prepared to agree to any onable amendment of the Ordinance, which would prevent frightful abuses which I predicted, and I remember espe- y that the pledge was given that the moment the Governor Ed have granted the Opium Monopoly or Licenses to the er, then the Government was to retire and leave him to cate by litigation or otherwise, his own private rights of erty, and that he should have no authority to call in the f the police to enforce them This arose in consequence y tendering a protest, which His Excellency thought out ason, as the Ordinance had not yet passed. A few verbal ations having been made in the 2d clause towards carrying effect the intentions of Government, the further considera- was postponed until the 22d February, when the draft was ast so as to embody the whole of the requisite amendments additions prepared by me as draftsman, so as to complete cording to the actual views of the Government, and in shape it was ordered to be published in the Gazette, where Appeared on the 27th February. It then bore its present there was introduced at that time for the first occasion former's Clause. I opposed it, but eventually consented to passing, on its being restricted as it at present stands, to
The Attorney General. Before I answer that question would suggest, that there had been many important altera- tions in the various printed editions-published or not-g s where the informer was a person holding an Opium Pri- the Ordinance before that published in the Gazette of 27e or License; this was done avowedly in fulfilment of the February; whilst waiting to be examined, I accidentage given, that the action of the Police and Government found on the table a copy of one of the Draft Ordinance, and at the foot of it, in my own writing, a resolution adopt on my motion. This I put in as part of my evidence The resolution is this,-"That on the 16th February, t Council will take such evidence on the subject matters the said Ordinance, as may then and there be offered." recalls to me the circumstances of a debate which I should otherwise have forgotten. This paper I know to be the firs draft of the present Ordinance as prepared and settled by myself. Its title is "An Ordinance for licensing and gulating the Sale of Opium in small quantities." On my arriv from sick leave early in December last, a draft in Mr King mill's autograph, purporting to be a Draft Ordinance, wi a title to the same effect, was sent to me by His Excellency revise, having regard to certain accompanying instructions, in cluding the Macao Opium Regulations, the Singapore Opium
Id be excluded. Nothing was then said about forfeiting Opium illicitly prepared, or giving the forfeiture to the in- er; nothing was said either about entitling him to a search- fant. At the next Meeting of Council, on the 24th February, mendment was ordered to be made for exempting Opium fide prepared for medicinal purposes, but nothing further egard to the Ordinance was done. The Gazette of 27th tuary, which contains the Ordinance, so amended, also con- , as did the previous Gazette of 20th February, the Govern- Notification [E] of the latter date calling for tenders. next Meeting of Council was on the 17th March, by al summons, on which day the Ordinance passed, and
ved the Governor's assent.
L.
*:
aving now made this statement, I answer the question put On the 16th March, I received my instructions to re further amendments of the Draft Opium Ordinance,
The Hongkong Government Gazette,
with an intimation that it was highly desirable that the the government offices in the afternoon; the time for tendering Ordinance should pass in some shape or other the next day. had not expired. If any higher bidder had come before It The serious variations to which the Committee refer, were o'clock that night, of course it was open to the government t2 produced by those amendments. I drafted what is now declare him the purchaser. But I understood no more were Section 9, and returned it the same day to the Acting Colonial expected, for a list was shewn me by Dr Bridges, which e Secretary. By that Section the power to issue Search-war-supposed to be the result extracted from all the tenders. II rants is given to a Stipendiary Magistrate or the Superinten- is not the list now shewn me(F). It appeared to me the dent of Police. There were other new clauses, some of writing of a Chinaman or a European of inferior education. which did not pass, and were not pressed to a vote on the I wish now to put (N) in an advertisement which has following day. There was one which would have given the appeared in the Hongkong papers, under date the 5th May, Opium farmer power to levy a sort of customs duty on in which Mr Henry Hoey notifies to the public that from imports of Opium: that was proposed by the Acting Colonial that date he had retired from the business of Opium boiling Secretary, but was not seconded, and on my opposition and selling in favour of Chun-tai-kwong, who now holds the sole was disapproved by His Excellency himself. It was proposed License under the Ordinance. I do this, Ist, because it shews by way of amendment of Section 7 as it now stands, and I am that Chun-tai-kwong and Hoey bave in fact accommodated their almost sure on the 17th of March, for it was distinctly stated by differences; and 2dly, because it corroborates Hoey's statements, the Acting Colonial Secretary in moving it, that it was suggest- and tends to disprove the evidence of Chun-tai-kwong, as to ed by the man who had, or was likely to have, the Opium Farm. the fact of the former having had a recognized interest in the The Acting Colonial Secretary gave on the same day the very business of the latter. same reason for proposing another amendment also drafted by me, either on the 16th or 17th March, namely, the last para- graph of existing Section 14, which directs the Court in ad judicating in favour of any complainant under the Section before mentioned-Section 8, to adjudge and deliver to the holder of the Monopoly prefering such complaint the whole of the Opium found to be illicitly imported or possessed. I also opposed the latter amendment, but this time without success, and I also failed to induce the Council to throw out the Search-warrant clause.
Adjourned till Friday next at 10.30.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
Friday, the 28th, May inst., at 10.30 a.m. Present,-Both the Members.
The Chairman stated, that the Committee after considera- tion, had come to the opinion, that a question put to the Attorney General at the last meeting ought not to have been put; it, therefore, and the answer to it, are now struck out of the Minutes.
DR BRIDGES,---Re-called and examined.
Chairman, Why was a notification for tenders for the Opium Monopoly published in the Gazette of the 20th February, then the Ordinance only got through Committee on the 22d February, and was not published till the 27th February ?
Council?
Chairman.-Was any reason given for these alterations ? The Attorney General-My proposal to throw them out was resisted by the Acting Colonial Secretary, on the express ground that they had been called for by a Chinaman who had contracted to give a very large sum for the Monopoly. That he (Dr Bridges,) had taken upon himself to assure the
Dr Bridges, The notification referred to had no particular man, that there would be no difficulty in getting them passed
elation to the draft of the Ordinance, as it appeared in the through Council; that if the amendments were not adopted azette of the 27th February. Of course it related to the he doubted whether the man would complete his contract; same subject matter. and that by not adopting them, Government would be open to his mind as to what the Monopoly would be for, whether But His Excellency had not made up the charge of a breach of faith. I spoke strongly against the solely for prepared Opium or for crude and prepared Opium; right of the Executive to pledge the Legislative, and signi-and therefore the Notification was put out as a feeler, in order fied that that would make no difference in my course. The to ascertain how much could probably be got solely from a Forfeiture Clause amendment was adopted without alteration by a majority. The Search-warrant Clause would have been monopoly of prepared Opium, in order that we might have thrown out, if the Governor had not acceeded to two sugges-
some data for preparing the Ordinance. tions made by the Honourable Mr Jardine,-the one that the alterations favourable to the Monopolist in the Ordinance, as Chairman, What necessity was there for making any section should not extend to the case of a supposed intention not actually carried into execution; and the other, that the which his tender had been made and accepted? At whose published on the 27th February, when it was the basis on person executing the search-warrant should not have power suggestions were they made or proposed? and with whom did to seize Opium not actually prepared. Against these two. suggestions the Acting Colonial Secretary protested to the you communicate on the subject other than the Members of last, on the grounds of danger to the contract, and breach of faith to the Chinaman. They were however adopted, Ordinance totally devolved upon me, who had but a theoreti- Dr Bridges,-The preparation of the heads of the Opium and the Clause passed by the Governor's casting vote, cal knowledge of the subject. When I saw Chun-tai-kwong the members being three on either side. The Minute Book being now placed in my hands, I see that my impression is correct they remained nearly three hours, I think, in the office making and his partners for the first time on Tuesday, 16th March, as to its being the 17th March, when the discussion took place as to the proposed Customs duty on importations, and I suggestions, and pointing out facts connected with the prac can explain how it was. Sections 7 and 8 of the present tions, such as employing the Police for the protection of the tical working of the Ordinance. Some of these sugges- Ordinance were prepared at the table, on the 17th March, Monopoly, and also a power of entry for search of Opium, by the Acting Colonial Secretary, and substituted for two new I informed them could not be granted. Such of them clauses somewhat to the same effect, which I had prepared the day before in
as I considered reasonable, I submitted to His Excellency, pursuance of before mentioned instructions.
who ordered me This he did because his proposed amendment, with reference an example of the omissions that I had made, there was no
to lay them before the Council. to the customs duty on importation, had not been accepted or provision for the disposal of contraband Opium. It is quite an even seconded, and therefore he proposed to get rid of the new clauses altogether, and substitute the provisions which are I stated that I had assured the Monopolist that there would erroneous statement on the part of the Attorney General, that contained in those two Sections. As I had drawn them any be no difficulty in getting certain alterations in the Ordinance person might have imported prepared Opium in any quantity passed through Council. The remainder of the Attorney not exceeding two taels. As they stand, no Opium can be im-General's statement as to what I said in Council is correct. ported by any person soever, with license or without The Members of Council seemed to be taken by surprise at these amendments, and I find in the Minute-Book this entry "Mr. Jardine suggested that whenever additions and amendments materially affecting an Ordinance which had been once before the Council, are in contemplation by the Government, such additions and amendments should be previously communicated to Members for their consideration."
my
Chairman-Do you know whether the time for tendering Was extended?
The Attorney General-It was not extended; for I knew on the 18th from the Acting Colonial Secretary himself, that the highest bidder at that time, except one-who was disquali fied by Ordinance as being the servant of a public officer- had been approved as the purchaser; it is notorious also that the extension of the time for tender has never been notified. The Acting Colonial Secretary told me what I have stated at
تی کو
As
Chairman,-Were you retained as Council for Chun-tai- kwong before the 17th March.
Tuesday the 16th March. If I were upon my oath I should Dr Bridges, I saw Chun-tai-kwong for the first time on
said to me on the subject of a retainer until after the 17th swear that to the best of my information and belief nothing was March; but if my memory is not correct, it may have taken place on the morning of the 17th, and if it did it only consist- ed in this, that Chun-tai-kwong and two of his partners came to my house about 8 A.M., to make some inquiry with regard to the Ordinance. I was in bed, and told the boy to open the door of my bed-room, which was on the ground floor. I told them if they wanted to see me to come up to Government Offices, and as the door was being closed, Chun-tai-kwong said to me, "I want to know, Sir, if you can be retained for the Opium Farm." I said, "Yes." That is all that took place. I believe that this was after the 17th March.