Ini Fiddes
how
send these to you to be dealt with by your Dept, but submit
a draft to be sent to Koney the point referred to at the end
of Davis' minute.
m2 725500
54928/11
You saw this with
G00739263/07 Jea
worth while
7
It seems hardly Bosen 5 paras
now
this to 7.0.
1-357 this
? Put by
a.l. 10/2/08 alone P. 10/2
Akons
38186
IT
439
You promised to entertain a further expression
of my views on the legal question.
It is admitted that a ship carrying from
Hong Kong a certain number of Indians is a "Chinese
Passenger Ship" within the meaning of the Imperial
Act of 1855 and that the only difficulty arises out
of the wording of the Hong Kong Ordinance, the provisions of which you regard as not applying to Indians.
Ships carrying Indians are of course still
liable to the provisions of the Imperial Act, but I
understand you to hold that no Court would forfeit
under Section 8 for having cleared without the papers
mentioned in Section 4 seeing that the action of the
Hong Kong Legislature has in fact made it impossible
for them to obtain such papers.
Does not what has, according to your view,
happened amount to this, viz:- that the intention of
the Imperial Act has pro tanto been defeated by the
Legislature of Hong Kong? But the Law Officers state
in their opinion of the 28th February 1907 that the
Hong Kong Legislature has not the power to alter the
definition of a "Chinese Passenger Ship" and that the
power of that Legislature to make regulations respecting
the class of ships defined by the (Imperial) Act does
not extend to altering the definition of the class of
ships respecting which the regulations may be made.
It