The protection provided by statute against fraud in this respect is the consideration of the bond entered into by the master and his sureties under the sixth section of the Chinese Passengers Act. He suggests that if possible proceedings should be taken against the Chinese Charterers under this section. In conclusion, he points out that the "Dayspring" was before the supervision of 3 Government officers, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that they all deliberately neglected their duty and concealed their neglect by signing false Certificates.
I am bound to say that the explanation furnished does not affect me as satisfactory. Although I am far from imputing to him or to the other officers who signed the Certificates in question an intention to sign what they knew to be untrue, I think that the condition of the Ship on her arrival at Melbourne, and the admitted circumstances of the voyage, show that their duties were performed in a careless & insufficient manner.
That the ship was sent to sea without proper observance of the provisions of the Chinese Passengers Act is indeed unquestionable. Firstly, there was no medical officer on board, as required by the second clause of the Schedule to the Imperial Act of 1855.
Page 397
Page 397
is not used, instead is kept as is, to follow the exact output format required by the user, the revised response is thus:The protection provided by statute against fraud in this respect is the consideration of the bond entered into by the master and his sureties under the sixth section of the Chinese Passengers Act. He suggests that if possible proceedings should be taken against the Chinese Charterers under this section. In conclusion, he points out that the "Dayspring" was before the supervision of 3 Government officers, and that it is unreasonable to suppose that they all deliberately neglected their duty and concealed their neglect by signing false Certificates.
I am bound to say that the explanation furnished does not affect me as satisfactory. Although I am far from imputing to him or to the other officers who signed the Certificates in question an intention to sign what they knew to be untrue, I think that the condition of the Ship on her arrival at Melbourne, and the admitted circumstances of the voyage, show that their duties were performed in a careless & insufficient manner.
That the ship was sent to sea without proper observance of the provisions of the Chinese Passengers Act is indeed unquestionable. Firstly, there was no medical officer on board, as required by the second clause of the Schedule to the Imperial Act of 1855.
Page 397
The protection provided by staw against fraud in this respect is the considers, the bond entered
into by the master and his succties under the sitt section of the Chinese Papengers Ach. He suggests that if possible proceedings should be taken against the Chinese Charterers
under this section. In conclusion.
be points out that the "Dayspring before the supervision of 3 Government officers - and that ific unreason= -able to suppose that they all deliberately neglected thesis duty- and concealed their neglech by signing false Certificates.-
dam bound to say
she sailed came under
5.
that the Snipation finis ex-
397
-planation does not affees to me satisfactory. Although I am par from imputing to him or to the other officers who signed the Certificates in quection
an intention
to sign what they knew to be untrug Scannoh but think that the con-
-dition of the Ship on her arrival
at Melbourne, and the admitted
show
circumstances of the ropage,
that their duties were
in a carcle,
performed
careless & msufficient
That the shif
manur.
sent to sea
without proper observance of the provisions of the Chinese depengers
Ach is indeed unquectionable. Firch there was no medical officer
on board, as required by second clause of the
the
Schedule
to the Imperial Act of 1855. and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.