CO129-490 - Public Offices - 1925 — Page 44

1

Ic suvlasn

ed? vongliv.

HOŽJAOTSWA

J

:

'

1.

باد

}

190DN FS

10 te dmado (4160a)

,.

.I

15[[m© tatesalgy bus 'too It"

arlet in tab burnG OJ TON IS V

.tbstic

410.5 1

Top Ião lest Elasta I

(7.04$ 18 Shokairi 380 V,

mut of bed so...

ed as 13 lowok Baltimo

sas teal.ced usi‡ mc

1 blown, diy at alúð sunt a, .

fagh stablando di ti +

:

us Buin od

16100 Jaitos mot da pubeste al betali

223 521

+

That Boy wori AT:

.I.

I i vien i

NVIO Juaibsa. Tuck

942 to BritainseN IGON INTERNO ZROZAD OR

cobramo 7:41.

Jeruk thatɛ ina..

1

I

MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTER appointed by HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR to consider certain proposals with regard to the prevention of piracy.

42

We the minority members of the Committee appointed by His Excellency the Governor to enquire into certain further proposal: with regard to the prevention of piracy have the honour to submit the following report and recommendations.

In September 1924 The Honourable The Colonial Legrotary wrote to The Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce, The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and The Combined China Coast Officers Guilde stating that "certain further proposals" with regard to the prefention of piracy were at present under consideration and asking each of such bodies to nominate a representative to serve on a Committee with certain Goverment officials to consider the proposals put forward and to make recommendations thereon to the Government.

The three bodies no named nominatod Heilage Sharp Brown, Chau Tsun Nin and Tom Turnbull Laurenson respectively the signatories hereto

The first meeting of the Committee was held as their nominees.

on Friday the 5th of December 1924 at which the assistant Harbour

It was explained by Master, Commander Conway Hake, ....H. presided.

In

the Chairman at the outset that the "certain further proposals" which the Committee was appointed to consider were principally proposals for the amendment of the Piracy Prevention hegulations, and that the Committee were not to be allowed to discuss the general question of piracy prevention apart from the regulations. these circumstances the aigmatories knowing the general opinion of those whom they represented felt themselves compelled to refer the matter bag to them before proceeding fu, ther with the discussion. The bodies referred to were of the opinion that the existing regulations were most unsatisfactory and that no revision of them would be effectual for the puriose of the auppression of piracy and that unless the whole subject was considered, and all avemes explored, no good purpose could be served by the signatories con-

timing