350
REPORT
of the Attorney General (the Honorable JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE)
on Ordinance No. 5 of 1873.
Before offering any remarks upon the additions which have been made in Council to the Bill as originally prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State by His Excellency the Governor in January last, I should premise that only three of its Provisions have been omitted.
The first is Sub-section 5 of Section IV.
It was considered that this offence ought to be dealt with under a general Clause in Ordinance No. 6 of 1873, because the acts specified in Section IV may be lawfully done with a License from the Governor, and one cannot contemplate the possibility of a License being granted to commit the offence of detaining or confining a person on board ship. This offence, accordingly, can be dealt with under the new Ordinance, No. 6 of 1873, (see Section IV).
The second Provision omitted is the saving Clause, or Proviso, at the end of Section IV of the Draft Bill relating to acts done in pursuance of Contracts entered into before the passing of the Ordinance. It was considered that it would be more prudent, in a measure of this kind, to leave the consideration of such cases to the discretion of the Executive.
The third Provision omitted is Section XVII relating to Foreign Coolie Ships touching at Hongkong. This Clause was struck out by direction of the Secretary of State, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to explain the reasons for its original insertion in the draft.
I will now proceed to point out the clauses and passages which have been added to and inserted in the Bill during its progress through the Council.
For the sake of convenience, I have underscored them in the accompanying printed copy of the Ordinance as finally passed,--and will confine my remarks to those which are of importance.
SECTIONS V to VIII.
These Sections are taken from Ordinance No. 4 of 1870, and are inserted in full instead of being incorporated by reference; and Section VIII as to the Revocation of the License has been adopted in addition to the others.
SECTION IX.
The Honorable Mr. BALL, (Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction,) strongly opposed the portion of this Section relating to the Penalties. He considered the punishment of offenders too severe, and that the forfeiture of the ship for such offences would be contrary to the Comity of Nations and give rise to complications with Foreign Governments.