Page 353
opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown
Mr Herbert founded
Hol1/7
My minute on 1626 was on the assumption that the object of Ordinance 8 of 1871 was (see preamble) not to impose new restrictions which it would have done if vessels proceeding on voyages not declared to be of more than seven days' duration came within its operation, but to modify in the case of vessels proceeding on voyages declared to be of not more than thirty days' duration restrictions to which vessels proceeding on voyages declared to be of more than seven days' duration were subject. I therefore suggested that even if the letter of the Ordinance extended to voyages from Hongkong to Saigon, this was contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance, voyages not having been previously declared to be of more than seven days' duration, and in fact occupying less time.
Sir A. Kennedy had now expressed the opinion that such voyages were excepted from the operation of the Ordinance by the proviso to s.3. I add by way of explanation that for the purposes of the Chinese Passengers Act, as I understand it, a voyage is to be considered a voyage of more than seven days' duration must be declared to be so; that if the voyage from Hongkong to Saigon had not been declared to be so and I believe in fact occupies, at least by steam, much less time.
I dare not, however, say that the above views are right as Sir C. Murdoch holds a contrary opinion and suggests that the opinion of the Law Officers should be taken.
In the meantime, acting on the Governor's assertion that voyages from Hongkong to Saigon were not
!
353
opinion of the Law Effieurs of the frown
Mr Herbert
founded
Hol1/7
My munate on 1626 was
on the assumption that the object of ordinance 8 of 1871 was (see preamble) not to impore new
strictions which it would have done of repels proceeding on voyages not declared to be of more than
Juration came within its
seven
dago operation, but to modify in the of repels proceeding
in the cake cake declared
on nagages
to be of not more than thirty days
duration restrictions to which
resels proceeding
declared to be
on nagager more than scaen
723
duration were subject. I therefore
suggested
corded that even
if the letter
of the endurece cxtcudent to voge from Houghony to Sargon, this was contrary to the spirit of the ordinana
На подар
rayay not having been previous y
declared the
days
of more
than
Seven
duration, and in fact occupying befs tome
Sir A. Kennedy had
Aut
Haml
傺
now expreped the opinion that such voyages
expreps, excepted from the operation of the ordinance by the provise to 43. Iwo add by way of explanation that for the purposes of th. Chinees Papengers act as I understand
а пазар
unjage, to be a voyez
in
of more them seven days duration must be declared to be so; that! the voyage from Houghong is Sayon had not been declared the so and I helicar in fuck occupies, at least by steam, much less time
I dare non
however say that the above
vecos are
right as sir C.
contrary
Murdoch holds a
Junion
and
suggests that the
munion of the Law Officers
ki lahen
In the meantime
acting on the governons rssertion that voyages from Haughong to Sargon were not
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.