In no case are these fees imposed through desire of gain by this Government--but simply because the audacious robberies committed by Chinese vessels have made it necessary to compel all vessels of that nation visiting this harbor to report to, and communicate frequently with, the authorities. Now, if this has to be done at all, the Memorialists, as men of business, must know that it cannot be accomplished so regularly by any other system as by one of passes and clearances--because the small payments required in each case render all parties accountable for money either received or paid, and thereby ensure punctuality and exactitude in the conduct and record of all proceedings.
Meantime, I would remind Memorialists that they are entirely mistaken in supposing that a security of 1,500 Dollars is required to obtain a License. The Ordinance (Section 26) only says that no Bond for more than 1,500 Dollars shall be required as security. Any less sum--when there is no ground for suspicion--may be accepted. Thus even so low a security as $20 or $50 might possibly suffice in some cases.
Memorialists are also in error in thinking that any higher payment than $5 for an annual fishing license, or 50 cents for a monthly license, is leviable from mere fishing boats--whilst under Section XXIX a license may be granted to every fishing vessel, subject to such conditions and conveying such privileges as the Harbor Master with approval of Governor may arrange. Under that Section therefore a means is afforded--when the Ordinance is in operation--of remedying every real hardship that may be proved.
As for the penalties finally falling on the vessel and cargo guilty of infringing the Law, that is not an undue hardship,--because it is easy to obey the Law--if the intentions of the Owners and Master of a vessel be honest. There is also an appeal always to the Governor, and it is so improbable that an Officer of the British Government would exact a penalty harshly or unjustly, that the Memorialists cannot be really alarmed at the risk which any honest trader incurs through that provision. If they still are apprehensive they had better use additional precautions when inquiring into the character of the Masters and Owners of the vessel in which they embark their property.
The remarks of the Memorialists as to the inconvenience which the carriage of large painted Numbers on their vessels might occasion in other Ports, are worthy of attention; and I shall revise this regulation if, on communicating with the Chinese authorities, I find reason to do so. Nevertheless it is evident that some external sign of their being licensed Junks should be borne by those vessels--and to be useful, that such sign should be easily recognizable and difficult to obliterate.
Having thus disposed of the objections urged by Memorialists against the Harbor and Coast Ordinance, I now proceed to consider their objections to the Registration Ordinance, and observe that the Memorialists still show a very imperfect knowledge of some of the topics to which they advert.
Thus when they say each Householder is obliged to furnish a list of his monthly tenants, they represent this as being a great hardship,--although every Householder has a list for his own use, and though if he cannot give complete information about each monthly tenant, he can at least state all he knows, and nothing more is required from him. If there be a difficulty in doing this, it is a difficulty which he must endeavour to overcome.
Memorialists also seek to convey an impression that the Ordinance, by imposing eventually on the Householder the onus of paying the fines of parties residing in his house when guilty of a certain class of offences, leaves him no remedy--whereas Section XVII expressly enables him to recover such fines from the real offenders. I disagree with the Memorialists as to the hardship of this legislation. It is partly borrowed from the spirit of many Chinese penal Laws, and partly from the principle of English Law, which in some cases throws on Counties and Districts the cost of damage to personal property and unusual charges for Police occasioned by the misconduct of Individuals within such Counties or Districts. Thus it imposes on each Householder or his Agent merely the duty of seeing that his tenants yield obedience to certain Laws of the Country which shelters and protects them. He can do this much better than any paid Officers of the Executive, and if he does his best to assist the Government in carrying out the Law, he may rely on it that the Law will not deal hardly with him.
It is moreover not true that the mere impossibility of paying a fine will tempt any, who can shift its payment on others, to violate the Law--because it is provided that parties offending against the Ordinances shall not merely be liable to fines, but shall also, in default of payment, be liable to Imprisonment with Hard Labor.
Further, the arrest of a man's family in China till surrender of the guilty member is not a parallel case with the Householder's payment in the first instance of a fine by an absconding tenant--because whilst a man's family can have no control over his actions, and may be a thousand miles away when he commits some offence--the Householder has from the first a general power of selecting and removing his tenants, and can at least endeavor, either personally or through his Agents, to have his house conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Law,--whilst he has opportunities through himself or his Agent of ascertaining the probable character of his tenants. The British Law therefore, unlike the Chinese, only expects him to do what he has opportunity and means of doing.
Finally, when we refer to the offences for which Householders are to be held responsible, all appearance vanishes of unreasonable expectation as to the duty of Householders. Those Ordinances, Nos. 11 and 14 of 1844, No. 12 of 1857, and No. 7 of 1858, define the offences for which Householders will in future be ultimately responsible, if committed on their premises. Those offences consist in illegal sales of Spirits, prostitution and gambling. Every Householder can if he chooses prevent all those offences on his premises, and I hope that all respectable Chinese Residents will earnestly support an enactment, which is intended to check a guilty privity as well as culpable negligence on the part of Householders.
As there is no intention of declaring Grocers and Opium Dealers, as such, to be Money Changers within the meaning of the Ordinance, and as the usual Chinese "condiments" alluded to by Memorialists will not be condemned as unwholesome food, it is unnecessary for me to add any observations in reply to the mistaken views of Memorialists on those subjects, who, I have no doubt, will be glad to learn that they have in so many points overrated the probable obstruction to business which the recent Ordinances may cause.
Their observations on the Piracy Court Ordinance, and the Stamp Ordinance, require no comment.
In conclusion, I call special attention to the fact that the peculiar habits of the Chinese themselves, and the crimes of their Countrymen have...
Page 62
10
In no case are these fees imposed through desire of gain by this Government--but simply because the audacious robberies committed by Chinese vessels have made it necessary to compel all vessels of that nation visiting this harbor to report to, and communicate frequently with, the authorities. Now, if this has to be done at all, the Memorialists, as men of business, must know that it cannot be accomplished so regularly by any other system as by one of passes and clearances-because the small payments required in each case render all parties accountable for money either received or paid, and thereby ensure punctuality and exactitude in the conduct and record of all proceedings.
Meantime, I would remind Memorialists that they are entirely mistaken in supposing that a security of 1,500 Dollars is required to obtain a License. The Ordinance (Section 26) only says that no Bond for more than 1,500 Dollars shall be required as security. Any less sum-when there is no ground for suspicion-may be accepted. Thus even so low a security as $20 or $50 might possibly suffice in some cases.
Memorialists are also in error in thinking that any higher payment than $5 for an annual fishing license, or 50 cents for a monthly license, is leviable from mere fishing boats-whilst under Section XXIX a license may be granted to every fishing vessel, subject to such conditions and conveying such privileges as the Harbor Master with approval of Governor may arrange. Under that Section therefore a means is afforded-when the Ordinance is in operation-of remedying every real hardship that may be proved.
As for the penalties finally falling on the vessel and cargo guilty of infringing the Law, that is not an undue hardship,-because it is easy to obey the Law-if the intentions of the Owners and Master of a vessel be honest. There is also an appeal always to the Governor, and it is so improbable that an Officer of the British Government would exact a penalty harshly or unjustly, that the Memorialists cannot be really alarmed at the risk which any honest trader incurs through that provision. If they still are apprehensive they had better use additional precautions when inquiring into the character of the Masters and Owners of the vessel in which they embark their property.
The remarks of the Memorialists as to the inconvenience which the carriage of large painted Numbers on their vessels might occasion in other Ports, are worthy of attention; and I shall revise this regulation if, on communicating with the Chinese authorities, I find reason to do so. Nevertheless it is evident that some external sign of their being licensed Junks should be borne by those vessels--and to be useful, that such sign should be casily recognizable and difficult to obliterate.
Having thus disposed of the objections urged by Memorialists against the Harbor and Coast Ordinance, I now proceed to consider their objections to the Registration Ordinance, and observe that the Memorialists still show a very imperfect knowledge of some of the topics to which they advert.
Thus when they say each Householder is obliged to furnish a list of his monthly tenants, they represent this as being a great hardship,- although every Householder has a list for his own use, and though if he cannot give complete information about each monthly tenant, he can at least state all he knows, and nothing more is required from him. If there be a difficulty in doing this, it is a difficulty which he must endeavour to
overcome.
Memorialists also seek to convey an impression that the Ordinance, by imposing eventually on the Householder the onus of paying the fines of
11
parties residing in his house when guilty of a certain class of offences, leaves him no remedy-whereas Section XVII expressly enables him to recover such fines from the real offenders. I disagree with the Memorialists as to the hardship of this legislation. It is partly borrowed from the spirit of many Chinese penal Laws, and partly from the principle of English Law, which in some cases throws on Counties and Districts the cost of damage to personal property and unusual charges for Police occasioned by the misconduct of Individuals within such Counties or Districts. Thus it imposes on each Householder or his Agent merely the duty of seeing that his tenants yield obedience to certain Laws of the Country which shelters and protects them. He can do this much better than any paid Officers of the Executive, and if he does his best to assist the Government in carrying out the Law, he may rely on it that the Law will not deal hardly with him.
It is moreover not true that the mere impossibility of paying a fine will tempt any, who can shift its payment on others, to violate the Law- because it is provided that parties offending against the Ordinances shall not merely be liable to fines, but shall also, in default of payment, be liable to Imprisonment with Hard Labor.
Further, the arrest of a man's family in China till surrender of the guilty member is not a parallel case with the Householder's payment in the first instance of a fine by an absconding tenant-because whilst a man's family can have no control over his actions, and may be a thousand miles away when he commits some offence-the Householder has from the first a general power of selecting and removing his tenants, and can at least endeavor, either personally or through his Agents, to have his house conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Law,-whilst he has opportunities through himself or his Agent of ascertaining the pro- bable character of his tenants. The British Law therefore, unlike the Chinese, only expects him to do what he has opportunity and means of doing.
Finally, when we refer to the offences for which Houscholders are to be held responsible, all appearance vanishes of unreasonable expectation as to the duty of Householders. Those Ordinances, Nos. 11 and 14 of 1844, No. 12 of 1857, and No. 7 of 1858, define the offences for which Householders will in future be ultimately responsible, if committed on their premises. Those offences consist in illegal sales of Spirits, prostitution and gambling. Every Householder can if he chooses prevent all those offences on his premises, and I hope that all respectable Chinese Residents will earnestly support an enactment, which is intended to check a guilty privity as well as culpable negligence on the part of Householders.
As there is no intention of declaring Grocers and Opium Dealers, as such, to be Money Changers within the meaning of the Ordinance, and as the usual Chinese "condiments" alluded to by Memorialists will not be con- demned as unwholesome food, it is unnecessary for me to add any observa- tions in reply to the mistaken views of Memorialists on those subjects, who, I have no doubt, will be glad to learn that they have in so many points overrated the probable obstruction to business which the recent Ordinances may cause.
Their observations on the Piracy Court Ordinance, and the Stamp Ordinance, require no comment.
In conclusion, I call special attention to the fact that the peculiar habits of the Chinese themselves, and the crimes of their Countrymen have
་
62
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.