12.
Government for the Licensing of Public Gambling
a
the Chinese of Hong Kong, through Governments. Farmer of Licenses, for fees and rewards received by Government, is open not only to the more obvious reproach of being altogether at variance with morality and policy, but also to the particular reproach of being intended as a means of swelling the colonial revenue and diminishing Imperial expenditure upon local Establishments. For, in that State paper, addressed to his Legislative Council, the Governor of Hong Kong, no longer in 1867-8 affects to set apart the monies received from such source, as not properly belonging applicable to local purposes, but now at least, comes to deal with them as part of that revenue and to apply them to those purposes, and this too in aid of ordinary revenue which according to the same statement is very largely in excess of expenditure. They also observe with surprise and regret that this change of policy is justified in the same State paper, on the ground that His Excellency had been recently empowered by your Lordship's predecessor to effect it.
Nevertheless, of the alleged "Despatch" or Letter purporting to be a genuine document, Your Memorialists, challenged to retract their original statements, on that head, and in the form at least in which they are worded. And, to give colour to the demand an issue, altogether immaterial, is attempted to be raised upon the word "highest" occurring in one solitary passage of their former Memorial (viz, that the Gambling Houses' Farm had been granted to the highest bidder). It must seem to Your Lordship as it does to your Memorialists, that the reproach to which this Challenge refers, consisted in the creation of such a Form and in the putting it up for sale at all, whatsoever may have been the other conditions upon which the acceptance of the bid at such sale was made to depend. If, therefore, their former Memorial had incorrectly stated the effect of the proceedings of the Hong Kong Government, it would be altogether beside the question, and, if taken equally idle for Your Memorialists to accept the discussion. But they do not admit that their former statements on this head - when read with the context are open even to that extent, to the charge of inaccuracy.
The Government of Hong Kong do not venture to say that the "offer" of "upwards of 300,000 dollars" was made by a "bidder" (indeed the vagueness of wording precludes the supposition of that being the case) and the fact (if it be one) that the Government was contented to accept a lower bid (with good security for punctual payment or permanent continuance than they might otherwise have gotten) is perfectly consistent with the fact that the bidding accepted, upon such conditions, was according to the ordinary acceptation the highest. Yet this is the issue, the establishment of which, as the "Despatch" or Letter expressly states in its last paragraph, is the one single object to which the whole of that pretended reply to the former Memorial is devoted.
Your Memorialists do not feel that they are called upon to restate the facts and proofs...
13.
12
12.
Government for the Licensing of Public Gambling
a
the Chinese of Hong Kong, through. Governments. Farmer of Licenses, for fees and rewards received by Governinent, is open not only to the more obvious reproach of being altogether at variance with mocality and policy, but also to the particular reproach of being intended as A.
of swelling the colonial revenue and diminishing Imperial expenditure upon local Establishments. For, in that State paper, addressed. to his Legislative Council, the Governor of Hong Kong,
longer. aut en 1867-8 affects to set apart the monies received from such
210
to local re
Alvenuci
MCAM
an
Q.
source, ad not properly belonging applicable to local purposes, but
now at least, clowns to deal with: themas part of that revenue and to apply them to those purposes, and this: too in aid of ordinary revenue which according to the same statement is very largely f
very largely in excess of expenda They also observe with surprise and regret that this change of policy is protified in the same State paper, on the ground that His Excellency had been recently empowered by your Lordship's predecessore to effect it.
Nevertheless, of the alleged "Despatch "
or Letter
are u O
J.
be a genuine document, Your Memoriatrist, challenged to retract their original statements, on that head, and in the form at least in which they are worded. And, to give exlor to the demand an issue, altogether einmaterial, is attempted to be raised upor the word "highest" occurring in one solitary passage
of their former Memorial (viz, that the Gambling Houses ' Farın "had been granted to the highest bidder" -JI must seem to Your Lordship as it does to your
Memorialists
13.
ari a.
ov
Memorialists, that the reproach to which this Challenge refers, consisted in the creation of such a Form and in the putting it up for sale at all, whatsoever) may have been the other conditions. which the acceptance of the bid at such sale was made to depend. If, therefore, their former Memorial had incorrectly stated the
effect of the proceedings of the Hong Kong Government
particular so irrelevant to the gist of their complaint to take exception to it upon that ground. would be. altogether beside the question; and, if taken equally idle for Your Memorialists to accept the discussion. But they do not ademit that their former statements on this head _ when read with the context are open even to that extent, to the charge of inaccuracy. The Government of Hong Kong do not venture to say
that the "offer" of "upwards of 300,000 dollars
was made a "bidder" (indeed the vagueness of worded precludes the supposition of that bring case) and the fact (if it be one) that the Government was contented to accept a lower bid (with good security for punctual payment or permanent continuance than they might otherwise have gotten) is perfectly Consistent with the fact that the bidding accepted. upon such conditions. was according to the ordinaraff acceptation the highest yet this is the issue, the establishment of which, as the "Fespatch" or Letter Expressly states in its last paragraph, is the one single object to which the whole of that pretended reply to the former Memorial is devoted.
by
Your Memorialist do not feel that they are called upon to re state the facts and proofs,
apor
в
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.