87
Enactments to be repeated by this Draft Ordinance
has not, so far as I can ascertain, come in force
Lo Tamarom
in his despatch Nr 57 of 18 May 1877 (the Draft of which has here been lost but a copy herewith is sent from the former) directed certain amendments to be made in it - this does not appear to have been attended to but as the code contained a suspending clause and has never been confirmed it is not law.
Had instructions been given to print it and the Govt should have taken steps to carry it into effect.
I presume that Mr O'Malley has ascertained that the list of Enactments in the Schedule contains all those by which hanging is authorized and all those by which flogging is authorized (as a sentence or part of a sentence) for offences for which it may not be inflicted in England.
I doubt whether piracy (act 31 of 1865) and Detaining persons with intent to sell them or Detaining a person (act 3 & 7 of 1865) might advantageously continue to be punishable with flogging.
I refer to the reference to $43 Vict.
I think it not parent that the Laws in force here should repeal the words "publicly or" done here in this act 12 of 1865.
I question the necessity or expediency of applying a different rule in Hong Kong from that established in England? The theory that Chinese are liable to lung disease is not supported by evidence.
Learn to be an appropriate specialist in such matters.
On the back has I When her pretty will implored. but perhaps there it was intended to decide the point in favour of uniformity.
I do not read the minutes as finally settling this point.
Subject to the above observations I do not see any objection to the Draft Ordinance.
It does not however as I anticipated that it would deal with punishments for prison offences.
Consequently alteration of the Prison Ordinance 17657 is necessary.
The word "flogging" does not occur in the defective Statutes, and it should not be introduced into this Ordinance (the object is to heighten its colour; but may Regain the use of the word as before).
I fear that technically it is right to repeal ord. 8/70 it is low, though its operation is suspended: but this repeal is not carrying out the Instructions of 18 May 77 - to not be told to take this order out of the Schedule as directed in that dispatch? (See 14.5/77)
Should it not also be wise to strike out the Sensational preamble altogether; a clause "Whereas it is expedient to modify the Penal laws of the Colony".
The preamble as it stands does impliedly omit the laws, and cannot explain the circumstances which had to their introduction, and it unnecessarily throws blame upon the Colony.
In conversation with Mr. Kingfield as to cl.3, the theory that the cat furriers lung disease in a Chinaman rests on Dr. Aris statement: but it was ridiculed by The Indian Medical Journal, drafton 14/07/77 from 22 - and the Medical Commission appointed to consider the question reported against Dyson, which the government find employers cause severe injury to the persons.
Page 88