627 2
by the
the immigration, but the Charter had to be abandoned owners of the British vessel for the reason that British vessels cannot carry contract labour to a Foreign Country and, the regrettable consequence was that the German steamer "Erna" secured the business.
The Ordinance above referred to was framed, doubtless, to meet conditions different from those now prevailing; but it now operates to debar British ships from competing for a class of employment which their German competitors, not being so hampered, are able to secure.
There is already a demand for Chinese labour on the Panama Canal which is likely ere long to become very considerable and would afford profitable employment to British shipping but for which it cannot now, under the provisions of the Hong Kong Ordinance, compete.
I am to add that my Council are somewhat at a loss to understand under what Authority the Hong Kong Ordinance was passed as they know of no power contained in the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts or in any other British Act of Parliament by which British Shipowners can be prevented engaging in a carrying trade between the Ports of two Foreign Countries which is perfectly legitimate according to the laws of those Countries.
My Council have not overlooked the "Chinese Passenger Act 1855" which enables the Legislature of Hong Kong to make regulations as to ships carrying Chinese passengers but that Act gives no power to the Legislature of Hong Kong to prohibit altogether the carrying of Chinese passengers from China to the Ports of other Countries but merely to impose regulations for the purpose of securing the comfort and proper treatment of the passengers.
Inasmuch as the trade in carrying Chinese Coolies to Panama and elsewhere is likely to attain to large dimensions my Council earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government will exert
627 2
by the
the immigration, but the Charter had to be abandoned owners of the British vessel for the reason that British vessels cannot carry contract labour to a Foreign Country and, the regrettable consequence was that the German steamer "Erna" secured the business.
The Ordinance above referred to was framed, doubtless, to meet conditions different from those now prevailing; but it now operates to debar British ships from competing for a class of employment which their German competitors, not being 80 hampered, are able to secure.
There is already a demand for Chinese labour on the Panama Canal which is likely ere long to become very consider- able and would afford profitable employment to British shipping but for which it cannot now, under the provisions of the Hong Kong Ordinance, compete.
I am to add that my Council are somewhat at a loss to understand under what Authority the Hong Kong Ordinance was passed as they know of no power contained in the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts or in any other British Act of Parliament by which British Shipowners can be prevented engaging in a carrying trade between the Ports of two Foreign Countries which is perfectly legitimate according to the laws of those Countries.
from
My Council have not overlooked the "Chinese Passenger Act 1855" which enables the Legislature of Hong Kong to make regulations as to ships carrying Chinese passengers but that Act gives no power to the Legislature of Hong Kong to prohibit altogether the carrying of Chinese passengers from China to the Ports of other Countries but merely to impose regulations for the purpose of securing the comfort and proper treatment of the passengers.
Inasmuch as the trade in carrying Chinese Coolies to Panama and elsewhere is likely to attain to large dimensions my Council earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government will exert
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.