CO129-116 - Sir MacDonnell - 1866 [11-12] — Page 61

6

But Your Petitioners would most earnestly crave leave to direct Your Excellency's serious consideration to Sections XVII, XVIII, and XIX, which Your Petitioners look upon as being fraught with evil and hardship.

By Section XVIII, whenever any offence shall have been committed against any of the Four Ordinances mentioned in Section XVII, and when the offender, being only a casual resident, and not the Householder, cannot be found, the amount of the absent offender's fine is made pay- able by the innocent Landlord, he being under such circumstances the "Householder." Your Petitioners humbly conceive. this enactment to Your Petitioners have be unreasonably hard on an innocent man. always heard it stated that it is a common axiom amongst the British people that it were better that nine guilty persons should escape than that one innocent man should be punished. To punish the Landlord for an offence committed without his knowledge by a casual resident in his house, and who had made good his escape, does not appear to Your Petitioners to be consistent with the just principle involved in the above good maxim. The remedy given by the latter part of the Section to the Landlord would be utterly useless, who would be unable to recover the amount of such fine from one who had already escaped from justice, or, who if he were to return, it would be necessary to sue for the amount even if he were able to pay it.

But if such a hurtful law is brought to bear upon an innocent man in the absence of the guilty one what can be said of the case where (according to Section XVII) the guilty man being actually present, and who upon conviction cannot, or will not, pay the Fine inflicted on him is allowed to go at large without any punishment whatever, and the innocent man (the Landlord) who had never heard anything of the offence being committed, is called upon to pay the amount of the Fine! In all Four of the Ordinances referred to in Section XVII it is provided that where the party convicted of any of the offences therein contained is unable to pay the Fine inflicted that he shall in default thereof suffer Impri- sonment with or without hard labor. Your Petitioners most respectfully beg to submit, that when this law becomes known in the Colony it will amount to an inducement to the lower classes to commit offences under the Ordinances named, especially those of Number 14 of 1844, and Number 12 of 1857, which they may do with impunity, without the fear of punishment, since whatever may be the amount of the fine inflicted all they have to do is to express their inability to pay it, in which case the Government will call upon the Landlord to do so. But besides this Your Petitioners fail to see why a Mortgagee in possession, who had only lent money on the House and Land, and who collects the rents thereof to pay himself the interest on the amount lent, should be deprived of the same as is laid down under Section XIX, because some person living therein may bave committed an offence under certain specified Ordinances. It would be impossible for the Landlord or Mortgagee to maintain such a supervision over the inmates of his houses as to prevent the commission of any of these offences, and this oppressive law, if car- ried out, will cause the value of landed property to decrease most materially, especially, since Landlords are now called upon to pay the Police, Lighting and Water Rates for their houses, whether occupied or Your Petitioners would respectfully beg to be informed whether in the case of a person who having become a Householder and having under Section VII, reported the same to the Registrar General and

not.

7

received from that Officer a Certificate under Section IX, should remove from such house and subsequently become Householder of another Tenement, will be called upon to obtain and pay for a new Registration Certificate.

Your Petitioners cannot conclude this, to them grave subject, without taking the liberty to allude to the repugnance which Europeans have always expressed against the unjust system of the Chinese Officials, în arresting and punishing the members of a man's family who may have committed an offence, and, who has escaped capture. Your Petitioners with all respect beg to submit that the confiscation of a Junk and her Cargo for an offence committed by the Master, (be not being the Owner,) under Ordinance Number 6 of 1866, and the infliction of fines upon the Landlords of houses whose tenants may have committed offences under certain specified Ordinances, as contained in Ordinance Number 7 of 1866, appears to Your Petitioners to be open to the same objection.

As regards the Licensing of Money Changers under Ordinance Number 8 of 1866, Your Petitioners would beg in the first place to bring to the notice of Your Excellency the fact that all Grocers shops may be looked upon in the light of Money Changers shops; because the nature of their business is such that all the money taken by them each day is in copper cash, which is exchanged by them for silver, in order to enable them to make remittances to the mainland for purchasing fresh stock- this practice is the more necessary since the Hongkong copper cash being only current in the Colony, the Grocers cannot send this coin for the purchase of their supplies. The same may be said of retail Prepared Opium dealers who, receiving only copper cash during the day, are obliged to exchange it for silver with which to purchase fresh stock. These persons are thus compelled to change their cash in this way, although frequently at a loss in the exchange; and Your Petitioners conceive that it would be a great hardship that they should be compelled to apply for Licenses to enable them to change their cash, particularly as they change it with the actual Money Changer, who gives silver in order that he may procure cash to give in exchange again to persons requiring it, the profits derived from this small business is barely sufficient to enable a man to pay his rent and obtain a livelihood, and many who are now engaged in it could ill afford to pay the License fee, which, if they are compelled to do, will oblige them to give up their business. Your Petitioners therefore trust that the Grocers and Opium dealers may not be looked upon as Money Changers, and they further feel certain, that, the number of actual Money Changers will be so reduced that it would not be worth the trouble of the Government to insist that Licenses should be granted at all.

Your Petitioners would take the liberty to offer some remarks regarding Sections IX and X of the Ordinance now under consideration, and particularly with respect to the article of "condiments." They beg to bring to the notice of Your Excellency that a large portion of Chinese "condiments" is looked upon by Europeans, if not actually as "tainted,” ‘adulterated," or "unwholesome," is certainly considered "noxions," this is a well known fact, and one commonly talked about by Europeans. In all Grocers shops where these "condiments" are sold by retail, and other places where they are made large quantities will be found-these "condi- inents" though offensive to the European taste and smell are not so to the Chinese, and are in daily use amongst them, either as delicacies or necessaries. If Informers are to be entitled to one half of the fine

60