CO885-(15-16) — Page 483

7669

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

CPER C.O.885

No. 64.

(HoNG KONG.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Proposed Amendment to the Hong Kong Chinese. Emigration Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889 : Definition of Chinese Passenger Ship."]

Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,

February 28, 1907. WE were honoured by your Lordship's commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 23rd January last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to forward to us a despatch from the Governor of Hong Kong in which he suggested an amendment to the Hong Kong Chinese Emigration Ordinance,

No. 1 of 1889.

That Sir M. Nathan's proposal was that the Ordinance should be so amended as to provide that in reckoning the number of Asiatic passengers on board a vessel, no account should be taken of persons travelling first or second class.

That the result of adopting this suggestion would be that mail steamers would be exempted from taking out emigration certificates unless they carried more than twenty steerage passengers of Asiatic race.

That the amendment of the Ordinance on these lines might involve an altera- tion in the definition of a Chinese passenger ship unless that definition was limited as thereinafter suggested. That this term was defined in 18 and 19 Vict. c. 104 as including every ship carrying "more than twenty persons being natives of Asia" and that it appeared to your Lordship that it would be difficult to argue that the power given to the Hong Kong Legislature under that Act to issue regulations was sufficient to authorise a substantial alteration to the Act by which the power was conferred such as would be involved in the variation of this definition.

That it was, however, for consideration whether having regard to the preamble to the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855, the term "Chinese Passenger Ship" as defined might not be construed as referring to twenty passengers being natives of Asia as were emigrants within the preamble. And that it was further for consideration whether, if this were so, first and second class native passengers would not be excluded from the computation of the number in deciding whether a ship was a Chinese Passenger Ship.

That he was accordingly to ask us to state whether in our opinion the Hong Kong Legislature had the power to alter the definition of a

"Chinese Passenger Ship" in the manner proposed by the Governor, or whether, in the definition of a Chinese Passenger Ship in the Imperial Act in question the twenty persons being natives of Asia were or were not confined to third class or emigrant passengers,

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report-

That (1) in our opinion the Hong Kong Legislature has not the power to alter the definition of a Chinese Passenger Ship" in the manner proposed by the Governor. Section 2 of the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855, gives power to the Legis lature of Hong Kong to make regulations respecting the class of ships defined by the Act, and we think that such power does not extend to altering the definition of the class of ships respecting which the regulations may be made.

are not con-

(2) We think that the words "passengers being natives of Asia fined in their meaning to emigrant passengers. As the words appear to be clear

and unambiguous so as to include all passengers being natives of Asia, we think

that their meaning cannot be limited by reference to the preamble.

The Right Honourable

We have, &c.,

JOHN L. WALTON W. S. ROBSON.

The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,

&c..

&c..

25 W 17 4,07 D&S 5 37042

&c.

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO