540048-1905-Bills-read-a-first-time--New-Territories-Land — Page 13

726

THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 26TH MAY, 1905.

Short title

and cons- truction.

Repeal of

A BILL

ENTITLED

An Ordinance to amend the Vagrancy Ordi-

mance, 1897.

Be it emneted by the Governor of Hongkong, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof, as follows

1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Vagrancy Amend- ment Ordinance, 1905, and shall be construed as one with the Vagrancy Ordinance, 1897, hereinafter called the Prin- cipal Ordinance.

2. Section 11 of the Principal Ordinance hereby section 11 of repealed. the Principal Ordinance.

Amendment of section 12 of the Principal Ordinance.

Amendment of section 13 of the Principal Ordinance.

Amendment of section 22 of the Principal Ordinance.

3. Section 12 of the Principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the omission therefrom of the words "long sentence", and by the substitution therein for the words "six months" of the words "seven days".

4. Section 13 of the Principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the omission therefrom of the exception "(other than penal labour)".

5. Section 22 of the Principal Ordinance is hereby amended by the substitution therein for the words is destitute of means of subsistence" of the words "is not under an engagement as mentioned in the last preceding section, or is possessed of less than fifty dollars," and by the omission therefrom of the words "unless such master satisfies the Court that he made due enquiry and that he had reason to believe that such person was possessed of means of subsistence when he arrived in the Colony."

Objects and Reasons.

The object of this measure is to reduce the evil of the vagrancy of able-bodied men in this colony.

It is considered that the conditions under which vagrants are at present lodged in the House of Detention are not such as to discourage their resorting to Hongkong from other places, and a somewhat more rigorous treatment is proposed.

It has also been found that section 22 of the Vagrancy Ordinance fails, in its present form, to accomplish its pur- pose. On the one hand the section leaves the shipinaster in doubt as to the extent of the "means of subsistence" whereof he is to require proof; and on the other hand the possession, at the time of landing, of a trifling sum by a person who is practically destitute, and who becomes a public charge immediately afterwards, may exclude the operation of the section. It is therefore proposed, in effect, to define "means of subsistence" as being not less than some stated amount, say fifty dollars.

E. H. SHARP,

Attorney General.

闻