Page 353
opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown
Mr Herbert founded
Hol1/7
My minute on 1626 was on the assumption that the object of Ordinance 8 of 1871 was (see preamble) not to impose new restrictions which it would have done if vessels proceeding on voyages not declared to be of more than seven days' duration came within its operation, but to modify in the case of vessels proceeding on voyages declared to be of not more than thirty days' duration restrictions to which vessels proceeding on voyages declared to be of more than seven days' duration were subject. I therefore suggested that even if the letter of the Ordinance extended to voyages from Hongkong to Saigon, this was contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance, voyages not having been previously declared to be of more than seven days' duration, and in fact occupying less time.
Sir A. Kennedy had now expressed the opinion that such voyages were excepted from the operation of the Ordinance by the proviso to s.3. I add by way of explanation that for the purposes of the Chinese Passengers Act, as I understand it, a voyage is to be considered a voyage of more than seven days' duration must be declared to be so; that if the voyage from Hongkong to Saigon had not been declared to be so and I believe in fact occupies, at least by steam, much less time.
I dare not, however, say that the above views are right as Sir C. Murdoch holds a contrary opinion and suggests that the opinion of the Law Officers should be taken.
In the meantime, acting on the Governor's assertion that voyages from Hongkong to Saigon were not