The protection provided by statute against fraud in this respect is the consideration of the bond entered into by the master and his sureties under the sixth section of the Chinese Passengers Act. He suggests that if possible proceedings should be taken against the Chinese Charterers under this section. In conclusion, he points out that the "Dayspring" was before the supervision of 3 Government officers, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that they all deliberately neglected their duty and concealed their neglect by signing false Certificates.
I am bound to say that the explanation furnished does not affect me as satisfactory. Although I am far from imputing to him or to the other officers who signed the Certificates in question an intention to sign what they knew to be untrue, I think that the condition of the Ship on her arrival at Melbourne, and the admitted circumstances of the voyage, show that their duties were performed in a careless & insufficient manner.
That the ship was sent to sea without proper observance of the provisions of the Chinese Passengers Act is indeed unquestionable. Firstly, there was no medical officer on board, as required by the second clause of the Schedule to the Imperial Act of 1855.
Page 397
was replaced with a more appropriate mark to indicate page break as per instruction:
Page 397
is not used, instead is kept as is, to follow the exact output format required by the user, the revised response is thus:The protection provided by statute against fraud in this respect is the consideration of the bond entered into by the master and his sureties under the sixth section of the Chinese Passengers Act. He suggests that if possible proceedings should be taken against the Chinese Charterers under this section. In conclusion, he points out that the "Dayspring" was before the supervision of 3 Government officers, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that they all deliberately neglected their duty and concealed their neglect by signing false Certificates.
I am bound to say that the explanation furnished does not affect me as satisfactory. Although I am far from imputing to him or to the other officers who signed the Certificates in question an intention to sign what they knew to be untrue, I think that the condition of the Ship on her arrival at Melbourne, and the admitted circumstances of the voyage, show that their duties were performed in a careless & insufficient manner.
That the ship was sent to sea without proper observance of the provisions of the Chinese Passengers Act is indeed unquestionable. Firstly, there was no medical officer on board, as required by the second clause of the Schedule to the Imperial Act of 1855.
Page 397