Gov/30413/13.
590
remain on the Statute Book. The Secretary of State replied
(1) that the special rate provisions could not
in any case be allowed; if compensation
were to be paid it was a matter for the whole community,
(2) that exemptions from the special rate for
which provision was made would in practice be determined not by the Governor in Council but by the corruption of the Police. (3) that without these provisions the Ordinance
would have no practical effect and should not therefore remain in force. Mr. Harcourt however agreed not to insist on repeal till he had examined the reasons which the Governor had desired to adduce against repeal.
On the 28th July 1913 the Governor wrote
a despatch setting forth his reasons.
He argued that it was inequitable to make people not living in the Low Level district and others not served by the tramway, pay compensation for the boycott; that the non-Chinese population in the district had no share in the boycott and that consequently the boycotters were clearly defined and no question of police corruption
arose.
He pointed out that the Chinese guilds and secret societies could and did terrorise people into continuing to support a boycott: that the Chinese members of Council voted for the Ordinance: that the Ordinance
was justified by its success.
As
Gov/30413/13.
590
remain on the Statute Book. The Secretary of State replied
(1) that the special rate provisions could not
in any case be allowed; if compensation
were to be paid it was a matter for the whole community,
(2) that exemptions from the special rate for
which provision was made would in practice be determined not by the Governor in Council but by the corruption of the Police. (3) that without these provisions the Ordinance
would have no practical effect and should not therefore remain in force. Mr.Harcourt however agreed not to insist on repeal till he had examined the reasons which the Governor had desired to adduce against repeal.
On the 28th July 1913 the Governor wrote
a despatch setting forth his reasons.
thens
He argued that it was inequitable to make people not living in the Low Level district and others not served by the tramway, pay compensationfor the boycott; that the non-Chinese population in the district had no share in the boycott and that consequently the boycotters were clearly defined and no question of police corruption
arose.
He pointed out that the Chinese guilds and secret societies could and did terrorise people into continu- ing to support a boycott: that the Chinese members of Council voted for the Ordinance: that the Ordinance
was justified by its success.
As
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.