CO129-341 - Acting Governor May Governor Lugard - 1907 [7-10] — Page 448

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

I do not think it can be said that the Hongkong legislature has exempted certain ships from the operation of the Imperial Act. It has not provided for the giving of licences for certain ships. If such ships were proceeded against for proceeding to sea without a license, I think the Court would lean to letting the ship off rather than to punishing for what construing the Act prima facie is not provided for.

I do not agree that you can make "Chinese" mean "natives". In a penal statute, you must construe strictly; this construction seems to be forced.

(1) I don't think that the 1874 order affects the question. Put briefly, what happened was this. The Hongkong legislature had formerly tried to get rid of the regulations of 1873, but did not do so. In 1889, they did, but did it in a bungling way, leaving certain ships not provided for. They could remedy this now by legislation if they like!

The omission of the order prescribes the conditions under which a license is required. The licence it provides for is one for taking Chinese passengers, as stated before, is for Chinese passenger ships carrying Chinese. I do not think you can wilfully apply this to other ships.

HBL 20/11

Edit History

2026-06-05 05:24:06 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
I do not think it can be said that the Hongkong legislature has exempted certain ships from the operation of the Imperial Act. It has not provided for the giving of licences for certain ships. If such ships were proceeded against for proceeding to sea without a license, I think the Court would lean to letting the ship off rather than to punishing for what construing the Act prima facie is not provided for. I do not agree that you can make "Chinese" mean "natives". In a penal statute, you must construe strictly; this construction seems to be forced. (1) I don't think that the 1874 order affects the question. Put briefly, what happened was this. The Hongkong legislature had formerly tried to get rid of the regulations of 1873, but did not do so. In 1889, they did, but did it in a bungling way, leaving certain ships not provided for. They could remedy this now by legislation if they like! The omission of the order prescribes the conditions under which a license is required. The licence it provides for is one for taking Chinese passengers, as stated before, is for Chinese passenger ships carrying Chinese. I do not think you can wilfully apply this to other ships. HBL 20/11
Baseline (Original)
R Suggestion A I do not think it can 443 be said that the Stopkong legislature has exempted certain ships from the operation of the Imperial Act. It has not perndes for the giving of licences for certain ships. I such shif were proceeded against for processing to sea without a license Ithink the Ct wo a lean to letting the ship off rather than to promisine for what construing the Acto مة prima facie is not finised for. I do not agree that you can Mulder you "natives "make "Chinese" gasia: In a penal statute the face gut forced. must construe strictly this coms the ation seems to und Suggestion B. виде o on "(1) I don't think that the 1874 ordre affects the question. Put briefly what happened was this. The Stone Kong legislature had former to get ridg the regulations of 1873. not do so. In bungling way 1889 they leaving pronisée for. They In 1874 they did did, but did it in a ! certain ships not remedy now by legislation if they like! (b Suggestion C. The omission The ordre prescribes the conditions under whi a license is required. The licence it froides for is one for taking Chinese passengers a as stated before is for Chinese passenger ships canging chinese. I do not think you can wifly a pessibitive gall other ships HBL 20/11
2026-06-05 05:24:06 · Baseline
View content

R

Suggestion A

I do not think it can

443

be said that the

Stopkong legislature has exempted certain ships from the operation of the Imperial Act. It has not perndes for the giving of licences for certain ships. I such shif were proceeded against for processing to sea without a license Ithink the Ct wo

a

lean to letting the ship off rather than to

promisine for what construing the Acto

مة

prima facie is not finised for.

I do not agree that you can

Mulder

you

"natives

"make "Chinese"

gasia:

In a penal statute

the face gut

forced.

must construe strictly

this coms the ation seems to und

Suggestion B. виде

o on

"(1) I don't think that the 1874 ordre affects the question. Put briefly what happened was this. The Stone Kong legislature had former to get

ridg

the regulations of 1873.

not do so. In

bungling way

1889 they leaving

pronisée for. They

In 1874 they did

did, but did it in a

!

certain ships not

remedy

now by legislation if they like! (b

Suggestion C.

The omission

The ordre prescribes the conditions under whi a license is required. The licence it froides for is one for taking Chinese passengers a as stated before is for Chinese passenger ships canging chinese. I do not think you can wifly a pessibitive gall other ships

HBL

20/11

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.