taken on board a number of Chinese passengers in Hong Kong, but proceeded beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony before this was discovered, and afterwards sailed for Macao without having been cleared by the Emigration Officer or given Bond, and without any Emigration papers". While she was still in the vicinity of Hong Kong, but beyond the limits of the Colony, you applied to Admiral Sir I. Stirling to seize her on the ground that she had violated the Chinese Passenger Act.
118 Act. Sir I. Stirling declined to comply, observing that he had no authority to seize and detain a ship for violating the Chinese Passenger Act, such ship "not being a British Ship, and not within Her Majesty's Dominions".
The question arises whether in the present instance the "General Glance" was liable to seizure on the High Seas for violation of the Chinese Passenger Act.
4. On this point there can, I conceive, be no doubt that Admiral Sir I. Stirling...
}
taken
on
board a number
in ers in
of Chinese passengers Hong Hong, but proceeded beyond the periodiction
of
the Colony before
this was discovered, and
afterwards sailed for Macas without having been cleared by the Emigration Officer or given Bond, and without any Emigration papers". While she was still in the vicinity of Hong Kong, but beyond the limite of the Colorry, you applied to Admiral Sir I. Stirling to seize her
the
ground that she had
violated the Chinese passenger
Act.
>
118
Act. Sir I. Stirling declined to comply obverving that he had
authority to seize
and detain
ж
ship for
violating the Chinese Passenger Act, such ship " "not being a British Thip, " and not within ober
"Majesty's Dominions?"
The question arises whether in the present
instance the "beneral Blance "was liable to the High
seigive
07
Seas for violation of the Chinese Favsenger Act.
T
4.
On this point
there can I conceive be I feel
no doubt that Actmiral
115 Sterling
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.