CO129-332 - Public Offices & Others - 1905 — Page 75

}

It is presumed that these observations of the Attorney General are equally applicable at the present time and give the reason why the Hong Kong Goverment

still consider that they are unable to frame their

legislation upon the lines of the American system or

of the Aliens Act of 1905. The Board of Trade do

not wish to challenge in any way the opinion of the

Attorney General that the adoption of the preventive

system in force in the United States of America is

not practicable in Hong Kong. It does, however, ap-

pear to them that in passing legislation of this kind

the Colonial Government should have at the same time

made such arrangements as it could for lightening the

burden which it imposed on the Shipping Community,

more especially as ex hypothesi it is the Colony as

a whole which is to benefit by the measure and the

Shipowners are the persons least likely to reap ad-

vantage from it.

The Ordinance makes the Master liable for the

costs and charges incurred by the Colony on behalf of

any person brought into the Colony in his ship, who,

within the limits of two months from the time of his

arrival, becomes chargeable to the Colony as a vagrant.

The Master, it is true, is relieved of all liability

under the Ordinance if he can prove that the varrant

at the time of his arrival was under an engagement or

was possessed of not less than $50, but it does not

appear that this provision entirely meets the case

from the point of view of Shipmasters, sines they have

no reliable means of determining whether an alien on

the point of landing has the means required by the Ordinance, no", even in cases where they could satisfy themselves upon this point would they necessarily be

in

74