3r. Brereton--The strongest, evidence tbe ( Ordinance is effeto is the bringing in of a new bill.
Mr. Sharp--Unless that is passed your Wor- ship cannot take notice of it.
Mr. Brereton-There are Acts of Farliament on the statute book at the present day which prohibit acts now perfectly lawful, such as a Roman Catholic going to his church or a Roman Catholic clergymam appearing in public
n his robes, but they are never put in force. And I object to this Ordinace as being absurd and inapplicable.
His Worship said he had simply to look at the Ordinance.
Mr. Brereton-You have a right to look and see if it is contrary to reason and equity.
His Worship-To cut things short, I may say I don't intend to consider the new bill at all.
Mr. Breretou-Well, I am really surprised at your laying down such a dictum, that if an Or. linanee is silly, unjust, and purports to do an act of gross injustice, your Worship will carry it out. Do I understand your Worship to say that ?
His Worship-Yes, that is exactly what Ij iutend to do in this oase.
Mr. Sharp--If my friend has any protest to make it should be made in another place.
His Worship--Exactly. They can follow the same course as they did before, and I dare say with the same result.
Mr. Brereton-But that is not to preclude me from using the arguments here. I can ap- peal to the Supreme Court, but that does not preclude me here.
His Worship said he would decide the case ac- cording to the Ordinance.
Mr. Breretou--It is the first time I have heard
a judge say he would decide a case without. hearing the arguments against it.
His Worship-I have heard your argument. Mr. Brereton - With great respect, you have? not. I have another pint, which you have not heard, but after what your Worship has said it is no use saying another word.
Mr. Sharp-This is not the proper time.
Mr. Brereton-It is, because if I show there! is no Ordinance applying to the case, it is practi- cally an objection to the jurisdiction of the conrt. It is laid down that in cases of this kind no Ordinance or Ach of Parliament shall apply.--Mr. Brereton road a quotation from Dwarris on the Statutes to the effect, that an Act of Parliament repugnant to common sense and right reason and impossible to be performed could not be enforced by the court. He said he was prepared to show į that this Ordinance was one of exactly that kind.
His Worship-But you say it is because there
is another bill before the Council,
Mr. Brereton- No, I do not.
His Worship-Weil, on the first point I don't j think it is much use arguing further.
Mr. Sharp-His Worship has not heard the case yet.
Mr. Brereton-My objection is a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court, though I don't put it in that way, because the Ordinance is repugnant to right rosson and common senso. Į Your Worship is not here to give effect to such an Ordinance. You are here to hold the balance: evenly between the Government and the subject. In England no magistrate would be displaced on account of his decision. You are here to do justicn fearlessly and without favour to one side or the other.
His Worship-I cannot see anything contrary to reason or justice in the Ordinancs as it stands. You have not shown me anything yet.
Mr. Brereton-Well, here is an Ordinance which lays down as a proper criterion for the number of passengers that should be carried on river #teamers that two passengers only cant be carried for every three tons. Now, what possible reason can be given for that P How could that Ordinance be framed so, unless on the hypothesis that every Chinaunau weighs a ton and a balf Two to every three tons, and the ship- foate, but add another passenger, or a ton and a half more and down goes the ship! The number of passengers to be carried on a ship is, and only can be, regulated by the superficial extent, not the tonnage. If the tonnage were the criterion this vessel could carry over 20,000 people, for the average weight of a Chinaman is not one ton and a half bat wirkt stones. Now, I hold in my
hand the Board of Trade's instructions to the.
i
surveyors of ships, and they seem to me to meet
in all respects the case. There the proper? criterion is the superficial extout of each vessel. If those rules were applied to my client's vessels one could carry over 2,000 passengers and other over 3,000. And those instructions apply, not to vessels plying in rivers, as these, which run in shoal water, but to vessels plying in water ton fathoms deep. Here, these vessels are plying altogether in shallow water. With the excep. tion of the Cap-sing-muu. for three or four bun. dred yards, there is not a yard where the depth exceeds four or five fathome, so that if a vessel were to go down there would be safety for every.
MMA.
Mr. Sharp submitted these remarks ought to be made by and bys if they were made at all, but they were utterly irol-vant.
Mr. Breretou said he was taking a preliminary objection, which his Worship had allowed him to das went on to argue that the criterion supplied by the Ordinance of the namber of passengers to be carried was absurd and do. feated its own purpose, because if it were applied to large steamers built for cargo only, say one of 5,000 tons, it would allow them to carry more passengers than there would be room for on the deck, the vessel not being built to carry passengers. He characterised the Ordin- ance as a tissue of absurdity, a monument of folly, and as instrument of injustice, and urged that it ought to be treated as a dead letter, being. contrary to right reason, justice, and common Sousa. It was no aspersion on the legislature to speak in this way for it was notorious that very silly Acts of Parliament were constantly passed at home.
Mr. Sharp-Your Worship. I contund the pro- test which Mr. Brereton has put forward and the i remarks he has made upon it cannot possibly have any weight with your Worship. Of course, any) romarks he may inake can hereaftor be ombodied in a memorial, but here we simply have to deal with the Ordinance before us. It was an Ordi. uance which was most carefully considered and passed after grave discussion in the Council. the summonses are taken ont under the 3rd section of 11 of 1876, which enacts that
Three days after the passing of this Ordinance, if Buy steamship shall enter the waters of the Colony of Hongkong, having passengers on board, from Can- ton or from places on the Centoa river, or from Macno, in excess of the proportion of two passengers for every throo tons of the registered net tonnage of such steamship the owner or maater thereof shall be Habla to a penalty pot exceeding two hundred and fifty dol- lars, in addition to a penalty of five dollars for every passenger on board, in excess of the proportina of two passengers for every registered.three tons (net) of the said steamship.
1
Mr. Brerotou There is no such thing as registered three tous net.
Mr. Sharp-Well, my friend has cited a pre- sedent, in which Mr. May dealt with a precisely similar case, and the full penalty was the e in- Rictod. Previous to the taking out of these summonses it was known that there was an excess carried by the steamers, not only by those of the company but also the other steamer, the Ichang, and I may say the numbers were counted pri vately and a report was made. Instructions were then given to make a very careful search upon all the steamers, and this was done: on the 17th and 18th of the present mouth. Boats I may say it was very carefully done. were placed round the vessels as they came into harbour, and precautions wore taken that no coolies should get on board either from boats or i from on shore. Responsible men were stationed at the three gangways and they counted all the On board the passengers as they came off. Kinahan 2,021 were cousted, the net tounage of} that vessel being 1,381.26, making the number of passengers she was allowed tocarry 90. On board the Powan, the registered tonnage of which is 636.69 net, giving a carrying capacity for passen- gers of 424, it was ascertained there were 1,359, being an excess of 235. The Ichang was also counted on that same day, but very fortunately! for her she was just within the mark, and there- fore no samwoners have been issued against her. Mr. J. L. de S. Alves, register clerk at the Harbour Master's office, produced the registers! of the two steamers, showing the tonnage to be as stated by Mr. Sharp in his address, and formally provel the number of passengers they are al- lowed to carry-
By Mr. Brereton---The Harbour-Masterisin tho habit of licensing steam launches to carry pas- sengers. There is a special Ordinance for regulat-
2
313
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.