CO129-498-14 Illicit traffic in opium and drugs 4-12-1925 - 30-11-1926 — Page 121

M. SAMUEL & Co., Limited,

LONDON, E.C. 2.

-3-

37

11 is directed against the actual shipper or importer of the forbidden article, the person as one might say who is there.

Section 12 on the other hand is directed against the master

and owner of the vessel, making them responsible for the

presence of the article practically irrespective of any question

as to who put it there.

This being so, it may perhaps appear rather illogical

that the scope of the presumption in the latter case should be

wider than in the former. It might reasonably be argued that

it ought rather to be narrower and that the legislature must

have intended that it should at least be subject to the same

limitations.

The

But it is not the business of the Court to criticise

the acts of the legislature or to guess what might or might

not have been intended. The work of the Court is to administer

the law according to the plain meaning of the words used.

wording of section 12 is quite clear and complete in itself. it seems to me that any attempt to read into sub-section (3)

the words "within the limits of any port, "or some such phrase

would be equivalent to qualifying the definition of importation

given in section 2 of the Ordinance.

"Import" with its grammatical variations and cognate

expressions, means to bring into or cause to be brought into

the Colony by land sea or air".

And to complete the definition I turn to the Inter- pretation Ordinance, under the heading "Geographical Defini-

tions"

"Colony" includes the several Settlements of Singapore Penang, Malacca and Labuan, and all other islands and places for the time being forming part of the Straits Settlements, and

all British waters adjacent thereto.

Another point which I think has rather been lost sight

of is that even under Section 11 the offence is not confined

to matters within Port limits.

All it says is that the