Accordingly the bill was divided and two Ordinances were passed, viz. Ordinance No. 21 of 1891 relating to prepared opium and Ordinance No. 22 of 1891 relating to raw opium.
After Ordinance No. 24 of 1891 had been passed, and until the decision on appeal in the case, Logan hereafter mentioned was given, some of the Petitioners were under the impression that under Section 38 of that Ordinance opium found on board either of their steam ships and which did not appear on the manifest of such vessel might, even though covered by the opium farmer's contract, be forfeited by a magistrate and disposed of in some way.
That Section states that any opium seized on board and which was "not on the manifest" would, if forfeited by a magistrate, be "dealt with" as directed. Petitioners naturally concluded that as the Governor directed how such forfeited opium was to be dealt with, it must necessarily follow that the magistrate had power to make the forfeiture.
That this must have been the real intention of the Ordinance is, your Petitioners submit, beyond all question. Apart from the fact that without such a power Section 38 would be simply meaningless and incapable of having any effect of any description given to it, your Petitioners beg to call attention to a letter dated the 8th April 1892 from your Lordship's predecessor (through Mr. Fairfield) to the Governor, printed in the book herewith.
In that letter it is stated that by the two Ordinances above mentioned (Nos. 21 and 22 of 1891) changes had been made in the laws of the Colony with the view of checking opium smuggling, and that one of the principal amendments was that any opium found on board and which did not appear on the manifest would, if forfeited by a magistrate, not necessarily be (as it formerly was) given up to the Opium Farmer.
It follows therefore that it must have been Lord Knutsford's intention that power should be given to a magistrate to forfeit opium found on board a ship and which was not declared on the manifest.
What this intention has, for some reason, been frustrated has recently been proved in the case of Logan already referred to.
The facts of this case are fully set out in the book herewith, and it is therefore only necessary for your Petitioners to state that on an appeal being taken from the Magistrate (who adopted in the hearing the views of your Petitioners) to the Supreme Court of the Colony, the latter held that there is no power in Ordinance No. 24 of 1891 given to a Magistrate to forfeit opium simply because it is not on the ship's manifest. Section 38, therefore, has not been judicially declared to be valueless; the relief which your Petitioners thought was conferred by that Section has, it now appears, never existed, and Petitioners are running their steamers without any protection from the local Government towards suppressing a practice which exposes them to all the penalties in force in the port of Canton if smuggled opium is found on their vessels.
Your Lordship is probably aware that these penalties are drastic, involving prohibition to trading in Chinese ports, heavy fines, and even confiscation of vessels.
On the 10th August 1893 your Petitioners sought assistance...
18.
ད།
Topp
Accordingly the bill raw divided and two
Ordinancek Here
parked, viz. Ordinance N. of 1891 relating to prepared copium and Ordinance N2Z of 1891 011891 relating to raw opium.
offter Ordinance &F 24 of 1891 had been passed, send until the decision on
appeal in the Care, Logan heremafter mentioned rat given, your
of one Petitioners pere under the impression that under Rection. 38. of that Ordinance Opium found on board either of their steam.
8. shipe and which did not appear on
on the manifest of Ruch wezzel might, even though covered by the copium Furmere pontificate, be forfeited by a dbagishate and
the Governor
disposed of in bommeil. That Rection states that any ropium Reized on board and which red not on the manifest" ")" whould if forfeited by a leagistrate be deturned to detitioners naturally Concluded that ar the for finance directed how such forfeited opium rastobe dealt with it must necessarily follow that the dbagistrate had poser to make the for fecture.
your
that this must have been the real intention of the Ordinance it, your delitionere Rubmit peyond all question. ofpart from the fact that without euch a power Rection 38 would be simply meaningless and incapable of having any effect of any description given to it, Your dctitioners bey to call. attention to a letter stated the 8" afpril 1892 from.
your Lordship's Lord Knute fond (through do sarfield) to the Webb, sprinted in the book herewith. In that letter it at shaked Hat by
the lion ordinances above mentioned (of Aand&£ of 1891) changer had been made in the laws of the leolony with the view of checking opium smuggling
-principal amendments was that
and that one
of
the
20.
493
m bound and which did not appear.
any Opium found on the manifect would if forfeited by a meagistrate not necezzarily be (a? Hat
(at Kat formerly the eare) given up to
the Opium Farmer. It follows therefore that it mit have been Ford Knutsford's idention that power should be given to a deagistrate to forfeit opium found on board a and which was not declared on the manifect.
22.
༡༣.
zhip
what this intention ho sever has been for Rome reason frustrated har recently been proved in the care
Logam abmes referred to.
of one
The fact of this care are fully, set out in the book herewith and it is therefore only necezzin for your Petitionere to state that on an
nat
Appeal being taken from the Magistrate (who adopted in the hearing- at the Police: Coment your Petitioner é views) to the Supreme lount of the colony the latter held that there isnopover in Ordinance of A of 1891 givento a Magistrate- to forfeit copium dimply because stienot on the ship's manifest - Rection 38 therefore has not been judicially declared to be valueless- the Relief which
Petitioners thought your
conferred by that Rections has it ron appears never lyisted, and Petitioners
your are running their steamers without any from the local Government towards Suppressing practice which exposer them to all the penalties- in force in the port of leanton of crunggled, opium> is found
on their vessele. to your Fondship is probably aware,
I aware, there penathes are drastre, involving prohibition to trading in Chineze ports- hecior, fines, and even Confitention of vessels.
On the 10th August 1893 your
assistance
a-
Getitioners
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.