CO129-505-11 Deleterious Drugs Ordinance 1927- proposed amendments 27-10-1927 - 9-11-1927 — Page 6

6

quite so 46B

But in that case I should have thought

that it would be impossible for the master to

prove to the satisfaction of the Court that

he had no knowledge of their presence; i.e. he

would be caught by our draft clause. Ιη

other words, I suggest that the reasons urged

by the Governor for the retention of the clause

urges

might equally well be reed in favour of the

substitution of our draft clause.

As regards the Opium Ordinance, the

Acting Superintendent pleads for the retention

of the existing section on the ground that our

draft clause would not "afford any restraint for

the carrying of opium " on the smell Chinese-

owned "scallywag" type of vessel (with its

figurehead master) about which we have heard

so much in other connections (piracy, misuse

of the flag, etc.).

It will be seen from

owners have been

enclosure 2. that the

implicated in a fair proportion of the cases

quoted.

If

Perhaps Mr. Bushe will advise whether

the view expressed in paragraph 5. of the

Acting Superintendent's minute is right.

so, there seems to be a good case for retaining

the section in the Opium Ordinance, in spite of

the inherent possibility of injustice to

reputable ships' owners and masters.

For the prevention of such injustice

the Governor relies on the discretion of the

Freventive Authorities, but it is precisely

because