Corred Report of the Attorney Gennali Speed re Opinn Dwain Bye Laws. Cut for the bungkay Weekly Press of
may
33
May 641597
known. when he made his contract that: the-- Sanitary Board could make such hys.: Precisely the same argument might be rysed i by any Crown tenant. He might just as well say, "When I made my contract there was nothing to prevent me from builing my houses as I liked or overcrowding them and thereby getting extra rent. Since that time they have introduced new laws and consequently I shail refuse to pay my Crowa rent." I defy way hon. member to find any fault with the logy. The contract was made with the Government,” the opium farmer seems to have taken a good deal of licence, and he knew the Sanitary Board could stop some of that licence. Every Crown tenant must submit to the law and so must the opium farmer. If he has been making extra profits all this time unknown to the Government- the Government began to find it out last year-by overcrowding and conducting these places in a most insanitary wanner he must have been making improper gain. The by-law he specially objected to bas been eliminated and the only one he can now possibly make any objection against is the present by-law 3, which says that a keeper of an opium smoking divan shall not permit his premises to be overcrowded between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. Coolies use these places to sleep in and if they went next door, which may be a common lodging house, no more than a certain number would be permitted. The common lodging house people bare now seen the advantage to the public health of the by-laws against which they formerly kicked, There is nothing objectionable in these by-laws and the opium farmer will find that he will lose nothing at all by them. If he does it is simply because he has been making money by overcrowding to the detriment of health.
The ATTORNEY-GENÈKAL-I would like in the first place to point out that I am not aware of any power under the Standing Orders for counsel to be heard as suggested by the hon. member. The hon. member, when he read the Standing Order No. 52, did not seem to quite appreciate the wording of it. The words are "In any case where individual rights or interests of property may be affected by any proposed Bill," etc.; that is to say, any Ordinance brought forward which prejudicially affect property. I have yet to learn that counsel have been heard in this Legislative Council when by-laws were being brought forward for approval. Bills are not by-laws and there is nothing in the Standing Orders to give any such power. It seems to me that the petition will speak for itself, and I do not know that even if counsel were here could be said upon the subject. For some time past it has been discovered- at all events during the past year the matter has been prominently brought to the attention of the Government-that the opium divans were greatly overcrowded at night and that they therefore formed an excellent place for the propagation of disease. It is desirable in the interests of the people in this colony to stop the propagation of disease and the Government is now doing all in its power to stop such propagation. The Sanitary Board called attention to the state of these divans, but it is not proposed to put into force any new power, but powers which have been in force for nearly ten years.
These powers are under Ordinance 24 of 1887-the Public Health Ordinance and Section 13 provides that the Sanitary Board shall have power to make by-laws for the sanitary maintenance of common lodging houses, opium smoking divans, factories, &c. It will be fresh within the members' recollection that difficulties arose about the common lodging houses -difficulties which have now been surmounted. We were told that there were insuperable objections, but all those terrors are passed. Common lodging houses are now properly conducted and what is now required is that smoking divans should conform to the ordinary principles of health and that they should not form centres for the propagation of disease in the colony. It may be thought that the Government was acting hardly with the opium farmer and oppressing him, but the by-laws were roughly drafted, and on the 22nd October, 1896, the opium farmer having been furnished with a copy, presented his petition, embodying his objections and asking that those by-laws should not be enforced. Considerable care was then taken and they were thoroughly revised before being brought before the Legislative Council and another edition was made; indeed there were three editions, and the third edition eliminated all the things that could be eliminated or reasonably be found fault with and that would press hardly on the opium farmer. The by-laws as they stand at present were sent to the opium farmer, with the following letter dated 31st March, 1897, to his solicitors, Messrs. Deacon and Hastings: -"Gentlemen,-I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 29th January forwarding a petition from the Man Fook Company on the subject of certain by-laws made by the Sanitary Board on the 21st December with regard to opium smoking divans. In reply I am to inform you that your clients' petition has been carefully considered and the by-laws have been revised with a view to prevent the infliction of any apparent hardship upon your clients, but that it is necessary to consider the public health, and the granting of the Opium Farm in no way implied that the Sanitary Board should be precluded from making by-laws in pursuance of the powers conferred upon it under the Public Health Ordinance of 1887, which was in force when that contract was made. I enclose for your clients' information a copy of the most recently made by-laws which will be submitted for the approval of the Legislative Council when it next meets.-I have the honour to be, &c., J. H. Stewart Lockhart, Colonial Secretary." This is not any new law which we are putting in force. The opium farmer knew, or ought to have