122
[ 6 ]
Yam Wo & Co. 南和司公 Hongkong. NAM Wo & Co. Tek Joo Seng. 裕德盛 Hongkong Joo TEK SENG. OOP Y. (Hongkong.) Hon. Col.; Secy,' C.
Med 25 FEB 12 Enclosure No.: 2 to Despatch No 30th. January, 1903,
Soon after the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance 23 of 1891 came into operation, it was found that Section 25 enabling Quarantine Regulations to be made, and Table L in the Schedule, were not altogether satisfactory because they did not say who was to pay the costs and charges incurred in respect of the infectious cases coming under the Quarantine Regulations.
No doubt Section 35 gave the Governor in Council power to make other Regulations instead of those in Table L, but the question arose would such Regulations be ultra vires if they imposed costs and charges on shipowners?
On the one hand it might be argued that as the Section authorized the making of all Regulations "necessary for maintaining and enforcing an effectual quarantine", and that, as such maintenance and enforcement necessarily involved costs and charges, a Regulation providing for their payment was not ultra vires. On the other hand it would clearly have been better had words been added to the Section providing for making Regulations as to such payments.
This amendment was made in Section 33 of the 1899 Consolidation Ordinance (No. 23 of 1899) and no doubt the Regulations substituted by Section 39 of the Amending Ordinance 31 of 1901 for Table L make provision for such payment. It is true Regulations were made as to payment under the 1891 Ordinance in 1892, 1898, and 1897, but though they were considered fair and just, when they were made and payments were generally made under them without dispute it appears to have been felt that some doubt existed whether they would be upheld if contested in Court, because the 1891 Ordinance did not specifically provide for making Regulations as to payment.
The Petitioners appear to object to the New Regulation 13, principally because it is not restricted to persons in the "Ship's Articles".
Granted a ship brings into Hongkong a number of coolies and one of these is found suffering from plague or small-pox, the shipowners do not want the vessel detained, the sick man is removed and treated, say on the "Hygeia" or at the Hospital. This frees the ship. Why then should the ratepayers of Hongkong have to support the sick coolie? Note the regulation only refers to cases of infectious or contagious disease.
The shipowners do not bring passengers to Hongkong from philanthropic motives. It is true that competition may in certain cases reduce the fares to something small but presumably
122
[ 6 ]
Yam
Wo
& Co.
司公和南
Hongkong.
NAM Wo & Co.
Tek
Joo
Seng.
盛德裕
Hongkong
Joo TEK SENG.
OOP Y.
(Hongkong.)
Hon. Col.; Secy,'
C.
the
!
Med 25 FEB 12
Enclosure No.: 2 to Despatch No
30th. January, 1903,
Soon after the Merchant Shipping Consolida- tion Ordinance 23 of 1991 came into operation, it was found that Section 25 enabling Quarantine Regulations to be made, and Table Lin the Schedule, were not altogether satisfactory because they did not say who was to pay the costs and charges incurred in respect of the infectious cases to. coming under the Quarantine Regulations.
No doubt Section 35. gave the Governor in Council power to make other Regulations instead of those in table L, but the question arose would such Regulations be ultra vires if they imposed costs and charges on shipowners to. ?
On the one hand it sight be argued that as the Section authorized the making of all Regulations "necessary for "maintaining and enforcing an effectual quarantine", and that, as such maintenance and enforcement necessarily involved costs and charges, a Regulation providing for their payment was not ultra vires. On the other hand it would clearly have been better had words been added to the Section providing for making Regulations as to such payments.
This anandoont was made in Section 33 of the 1999 Consolidation Orlinance (No. 23 of 1939) and no doubt the Regula- tions substituted by Section 39 of the Amending Ordinance 31 of 1901 for Table & make provision for such payment. It is true Regulations were male as to payment under the 1991 Ordinance in 1992, 1998, and 1997, but though they were considered fair and just, when they were male and payments were generally made under them without desur it ap- pears to have been felt that some doubt existed whether they would be upheld it contested in Court, because the 1891 Ordinance dil not specifically provide for making Regulations as to payment.
The Petitioners appear to object to the Nar Regulation 13, principally because it is not restricted to persons the Ship's Artiolas".
on
Granted a ship brings into Hongkong a number
of coolies and one of these is found suffering from plague or small- pox, the shipowners do not want the vessel detained, the sick man is removed and treated, say on the "Hygeia" or at the Hospital. This frees the ship. Why then should the ratepayers of Hongkong have to support the sick woolie ? Note the regulation only refers to cases of intec- tious or contagious disease. ;
The shipo waets do not bring passengers to Hongkong from philanthropic motives. It is true that competition may in certain cases reduce the fares to something small but presumably
the
{
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.