CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7] — Page 111

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

of a totally different class, and the amount of punishment to be inflicted, differs in principle as well as in degree from any cases where the offender is really a wrong doer. Where confiscation can fairly and properly be insisted on, the Treaty expressly provides that no higher pecuniary penalty than $500 can be inflicted for any offence against, or breach of Treaty Regulations where the Treaty itself does not expressly specify the penalty. If therefore it is not just that the "Prince Albert" should be confiscated for her inadvertent breach of the letter of the Treaty, no tribunal can impose a fine or punishment more than $500, and, though not admitting the power of Mr. Wade to create a tribunal, even if the tribunal adjudicates in this matter, it can only do so on the basis provided by the Treaty, viz:- Confiscation, if just, or, if the case does not merit confiscation, a fine not exceeding $500. It cannot be meant that the confiscation is really upheld and that the Chinese government is willing to sell me back the steamer, because in that case, why should they take less than her value? I am entitled to consideration at all, it ought only to be, "have I deserved the confiscation of my property?", as if so, I cannot be entitled to get the vessel back except after appraisal.

I would strenuously argue that this is neither fair nor just. If I am really guilty within the spirit of the Treaty provision, my steamer ought to be confiscated, while if I am not so guilty, then I ought not to be fined to the extent of $4,000. I enclose a memorandum of actual expenditure consequential on the seizure of the steamer and the steps I have taken to get redress, but am unable to furnish any estimate of the deteriorated state of the steamer because the Canton Custom House Authorities distinctly refuse to allow Captain Godsil, the late master, or anyone else, or any person to inspect or even to go on board the vessel. I am led to believe that this refusal must be caused by a consciousness that the steamer has not only deteriorated in value but has been plundered by the Customs employees. My reason for so believing is that the steam whistle of my steamer has been removed from the Engine.

Page 109

Edit History

2026-05-19 18:48:19 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
of a totally different class, and the amount of punishment to be inflicted, differs in principle as well as in degree from any cases where the offender is really a wrong doer. Where confiscation can fairly and properly be insisted on, the Treaty expressly provides that no higher pecuniary penalty than $500 can be inflicted for any offence against, or breach of Treaty Regulations where the Treaty itself does not expressly specify the penalty. If therefore it is not just that the "Prince Albert" should be confiscated for her inadvertent breach of the letter of the Treaty, no tribunal can impose a fine or punishment more than $500, and, though not admitting the power of Mr. Wade to create a tribunal, even if the tribunal adjudicates in this matter, it can only do so on the basis provided by the Treaty, viz:- Confiscation, if just, or, if the case does not merit confiscation, a fine not exceeding $500. It cannot be meant that the confiscation is really upheld and that the Chinese government is willing to sell me back the steamer, because in that case, why should they take less than her value? I am entitled to consideration at all, it ought only to be, "have I deserved the confiscation of my property?", as if so, I cannot be entitled to get the vessel back except after appraisal. I would strenuously argue that this is neither fair nor just. If I am really guilty within the spirit of the Treaty provision, my steamer ought to be confiscated, while if I am not so guilty, then I ought not to be fined to the extent of $4,000. I enclose a memorandum of actual expenditure consequential on the seizure of the steamer and the steps I have taken to get redress, but am unable to furnish any estimate of the deteriorated state of the steamer because the Canton Custom House Authorities distinctly refuse to allow Captain Godsil, the late master, or anyone else, or any person to inspect or even to go on board the vessel. I am led to believe that this refusal must be caused by a consciousness that the steamer has not only deteriorated in value but has been plundered by the Customs employees. My reason for so believing is that the steam whistle of my steamer has been removed from the Engine. Page 109
Baseline (Original)
of a totally different class, and the amount of kennishment to be inflicted, differs in principle as well as in degree from any as a cases where the offender is silfully a vrong deer. : where confiscation camos fairly, and properly be insisted on, the wreaty, expressly provides that no higher peenniary mulat than $500. can be inflicted for any offence against, or breach breach of Treaty Regulations case where the Treaty itself does not pexpressly specify the penalty. If there fore it is not just that the "Spince Albert "should be confiscated for her inadvertent breach of the letter of the Treaty, notribunal can impose fine or punishment more than $500, and, though not admitting the power of tw: Wade to Create a Tribunal, even if the tribunal adjudicates in this matter have porver to deal with the it can only so on the basis provided by the treaty viz :- Confiscation, if just, or, if the case does & not merit confiscation, a fine not exceeing 500.- It cannot be meant that the confiscation is really upheld and that the Chinese govern, willing to to sell me back the Steamer, because in that case, why should they take less than her valne & of dam entitled to affidu ment are case, do > } 109 Consideration at all it ought only to be, "have I deserved the confiscation of my ! property "?", as if so, woannot be entitled to get the vessel back except ather appraise. unge strenuously that this is neither fair value. I would "solution of my as, if just, as, "Jam Case # mor really quilty within the steamer spirit of the treaty provision my ought to be confiscated, while if d'am not 20 Guilty, then dought not to be finished to the extent of 4,000. Jenclose a memorandum of actual. expenditure Consegnential on the seizure of the steamer and the steps I have taken to get redress but am unable to furnish any tetimate of the deteriorated state of the steamer because the Canton Custom House Anthorities distinethy reface to allow bapt Godsil the late master one else or any to inspect or even to go on board the vessel.__ dam led to believe that this refusal must be caused by a consciouences that the steamer has not only deteriorated in value but has been plundered by the Customs employes, reason for so believing is, that the steam whistle of my steamer has been removed from the Engine and is- and my
2026-05-19 18:48:19 · Baseline
View content

of a totally different class, and the amount of kennishment to be inflicted, differs in principle as well as in degree from

any

as a

cases

where the offender is silfully a vrong deer. : where confiscation camos fairly, and

properly be insisted on, the wreaty, expressly provides that no higher peenniary mulat than $500. can be inflicted for any offence against, or breach

breach of Treaty Regulations case where the Treaty itself does not pexpressly specify the penalty. If there fore it is not just that the "Spince Albert "should be confiscated for her inadvertent breach of the letter of the Treaty, notribunal can impose fine or punishment more than $500, and, though not admitting the power of tw: Wade to Create a Tribunal, even if the tribunal adjudicates in this matter have porver to deal with the

it can only so on the basis provided by the treaty viz :- Confiscation, if just, or, if the case does & not merit confiscation, a fine not exceeing

500.- It cannot be meant that the confiscation is really upheld and that the Chinese govern,

willing to

to sell me back the Steamer, because in that case, why should they take less than her valne & of dam entitled to

affidu

ment are

case,

do

>

}

109

Consideration at all it ought only to be, "have I deserved the confiscation of my

!

property "?", as if so, woannot be entitled to get the vessel back except ather appraise.

unge strenuously that this

is neither fair

value. I would "solution of my

as, if

just, as,

"Jam

Case

#

mor

really quilty within the

steamer

spirit of the treaty provision my

ought to be confiscated, while if d'am not 20 Guilty, then dought not to be finished to the extent of 4,000. –

Jenclose a memorandum of actual. expenditure Consegnential on

the seizure

of the steamer and the steps I have taken to get redress but am unable to furnish any tetimate of the deteriorated state of the steamer because the Canton Custom House Anthorities distinethy reface to allow bapt Godsil the late master

one

else

or any to inspect or even to go on board the vessel.__ dam led to believe that this refusal must be caused by

a consciouences that the steamer has not only deteriorated in value but has been plundered by the Customs employes,

reason for so believing is, that the steam whistle of my steamer has been removed from the Engine and is-

and

my

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.