CO129-505-11 Deleterious Drugs Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 27-10-1927 - 9-11-1927 — Page 14

14

Enclo. No. 1

Enclo No.2.

forfeiture provisions, which seem in some cases at least, to

apply irrespective of any knowledge or consent of the owner.

4. Copy of a digest of certain notes by the

Superintendent of Imports and Exports is enclosed. The

Superintendent of Imports and Exports emphasises the very

peculiar nature of the conditions governing Chinese ship-

owning in the Colony and ventures to doubt whether

provisions similar to those contained in the draft amendment

to the Straits Ordinance would not tend to remove all

restraint on the use of ships for carrying opium, as he is

of opinion that it would be impossible in practice to secure

a conviction.

the

A

5.

A table is appended giving specific instances

of concealment of opium in places where it could only be put

with the connivance or gross negligence of the ship's

officers or owner. The cases in which a conviction under

the sub-section in question was obtained are indicated.

I venture to submit that the operation of

the Ordinance in this respect has not been inequitable.

Section 8 of the Arms and Ammunition

6.

Ordinance, 1900, is on a different footing, because the

vessels referred to therein are all comparatively small and

the craft and their personnel are under the detailed control

of the person in charge. In addition arms and ammunition

are in general less easy to conceal than opium. I am of

opinion that the retention of the section is in the

circumstances entirely defensible.

7.

The retention of the sub-section of the

Opium Ordinance is, I admit, more difficult to defend, but

I submit that, if the same discretion is exercised in the

future as in the past, there is no reason to fear that any

case of injustice will occur under its application, while

its