vd with. 22 端
One Bunghong Government Gazette.
[JUNE 19, 1858.
I redrew Mr Kin
I had not the slighest idea as to | Regulations, and I think these of Java. would get the privilege until the Governor decided on mill's draft, changing the arrangement, and making it appl present holder. I did not know whether the Governor | ight strike out the tenders received on Sunday. My note on list of tenders referred to the Governor, seems rather to
int out that the second on the list might be favourably con- sidered. To show how little I knew myself who would obtain de Opium License, I may mention, that on Friday the 12th arch, the day preceding the closing of the tenders, I had a g conversation in John Burd & Co.'s office, with Mir Block a Chinaman whom I found there. I put down in figures te result of my inquiries and calculations as to the probable revenna from thẻ Monopoly, the consequence of this was that the ith highest tender, which is 48,610 above any of those below, is from John Burd & Co.'s comprador.
Adjourned till Wednesday next at 3 P.M.
*
II. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
Meeting of Committce on Wednesday, 19th May instant, adjourned to that day fortnight. It appears by the nex:
AB P.M.
Present-Both Members.
Adjourned till Saturday next at 3 P.M.
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairman.
On Saturday, 22d May, the Mecting was adjourned through the Clerk of the Councils, by order of the Chairman, to Wednesday, the 26th May instant, at 10.30 A.M.
He said
Wednesday, 26th May instant, at 10.30 A.M.
Present-Both Members.
[Read Two Letters from Mr Hoey, annexed, (J.K)] HENRY KINGSMILI, Esq.,-Called in and examined. By the Chairman, was counsel for Chun-tai-kwong in a case before you, in which Chun-tai-kwong was complainant, and Mr Hoey defendant. Mr Hoey stated on cross-examina- tion by me, that Dr Bridges had a personal interest in the Opiumi Monopoly. I asked him whether, when he was at the Government Offices to execute the bond, he had told Dr Bridges that he (Hoey) was to be a partner in the Monopoly. No." I asked him whether it was intended at that time he was to be a partner. He said "Yes." I then asked him if he ever told Dr Bridges that he was a partner. He said he did on the day on which the Caribbeun caso had been heard before you. I asked him why he had not mentioned this to Dr Bridges before. He gave no direct answer, and then giving a toss of his head said,
he fact of it is, Dr Bridges has a per sonal interest in it himself." He said this in an angry way I said, "there, Mr Hocy, that's quite enough, that's a question with which we have nothing to do here; my impression is that you rather seconded my observation.
able to all Opium raw or prepared, saleable in quantities less than one Chest. I sent in this draft, I think, about t 14th or 15th December. It was then laid before the Counc read a first time, and printed, December, 1857. On the fir reading of the Bill, I opposed it in its principle, and in ever one of its details, distinguishing as I always do between n my duties as draftsman, and as Legislative Councillor. i passed, it would have effectually destroyed a retail trade raw Opium, as well as in prepared Opium, both being to b included in the Opium privilege, and the Sub-licenses, an dealing with them in any other way being prohibited under th penalties contained in the 6th Section, without benefit f certiorari. [Minute-Book of Legislative Council produced by the Clerk of the Councils.] The first reading took place on the 26th of December, 1857, as appears by the Minute-Book now produced; and on the 5th January, 1858, I learn from the same Minute-Book, that the debate on the Ordinance was entry that, down to this time, it had not been published for general information, for the next entry of the same date is an order to that effect proposed by the Acting Colonia! Secretary, and seconded by the Chief Magistrate. It was to be published in the Gazette of the 9th January, it was read a second time on the 19th January, but on the opposition of the Honourable Mr Dent, the Committee on the Ordinance was postponed till the 16th of February, and immediately afterwards the resolution of which you have the draft was moved by me for taking evidence if offered. On the suggestion either of His Excellency or the Acting Colonial Secretary, Members understood that the names of any witnesses to be examined on the 16th February were to be sent in, on or before the 13th February. There was no Meeting of the Legis- 17th February, when the Acting Colonial Secretary stated that, lative Council on the 16th February, but there was one on the after mature consideration, Government had decided to confine the application of the Ordinance to prepared Opium, and to ex- tend it by making it applicable to all such Opium whether sold in large or small quantities. The exemption of raw Opium was stated to be a concession to the opposition made to the Ordi. nance by the community, and particularly by the opposition members of Council; but inasmuch as no evidence pursuant to the resolution had been brought forward by any member of the Council or of Government to justify the remaining restric- tions, I continued to oppose them. His Excellency was reasonable amendment of the Ordinance, which would prevent pleased to state in reply, that he was prepared to agree to any the frightful abuses which I predicted, and I remember espe- cially that the pledge was given that the moment the Governor should have granted the Opium Monopoly or Licenses to the holder, then the Government was to retire and leave him to vindicate by litigation or otherwise, his own private rights of Property, and that he should have no authority to call in the This arose in consequence
Chairman. As Acting Attorney General from 22d July last to December, I drafted an Ordinance for the Monopoly of the Sale of Opium. This, I think, was about the 10th of December; it was not confined to prepared Opium. In receiv-aid of the police to enforce them ing my instructions for the drafting, I only communicated to the Acting Colonial Secretary, I did not communicate with any one else-Chinese or other.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-Re-called and examined. Chairman.-I wish to draw your attention to the last edition but one of the Opium Monopoly Ordinance, published in the Gazelle of the 27th February last, and to the Ordinance as finally passed on the 17th March last, and published in the Gazette of the 20th March. There are great alterations. Will you point out the alterations to the Committee, and explain
their effect.
The Attorney General-Before I answer that question I would suggest, that there had been many important altera- tions in the various printed editions-published or not-of the Ordinance before that published in the Gazette of 27th found on the table a copy of one of the Draft Ordinances, February; whilst waiting to be examined, I accidentally and at the foot of it, in my own writing, a resolution adopted on my motion. This I put in as part of my evidence (L.) The resolution is this," That on the 16th February, this Council will take such evidence on the subject matters of the said Ordinance, as may then and there be offered." It recalls to me the circumstances of a debate which I should otherwise have forgotten. This paper I know to be the first draft of the present Ordinance as prepared and settled by myself. Its title is "An Ordinance for licensing and re- gulating the Sale of Opisa in small quantities." On my arrival from sick leave early in December last, a draft in Mr Kings mill's autograph, purporting to be a Draft Ordinance, with a title to the same effect, was sent to me by His Excellency to revise, having regard to certain accompanying instructions, in- cluding the Macao Opium Regulations, the Singapore Opium
of my tendering a protest, which His Excellency thought out of season, as the Ordinance had not yet passed. A few verbal alterations having been made in the 2d clause towards carrying into effect the intentions of Government, the further considera- tion was postponed until the 22d February, when the draft was and additions prepared by me as draftsman, so as to complete re-cast so as to embody the whole of the requisite amendments it according to the actual views of the Government, and in that shape it was ordered to be published in the Gazette, where title; there was introduced at that time for the first occasion it appeared on the 27th February. It then bore its present an informer's Clause. I opposed it, but eventually consented to its passing, on its being restricted as it at present stands, to cases where the informer was a person holding an Opium Pri- vilege or License; this was done avowedly in fulfilment of the
the Opium illicitly prepared, or giving the forfeiture to the in pledge given, that the action of the Police and Government Nothing was then said about forfeiting former; nothing was said either about entitling him to a search- warrant. At the next Meeting of Council, on the 24th February, an amendment was ordered to be made for exempting Opium in regard to the Ordinance was done. The Gazette of 27th bona fide prepared for medicinal purposes, but nothing further February, which contains the Ordinance, so amended, also con- ment Notification [E] of the latter date calling for tenders. tains, as did the previous Gazette of 20th February, the Govern- The next Meeting of Council was on the 17th March, by special summons, on which day the Ordinance passed, and
should be excluded.
received the Governor's assent,
Having now made this statement, I answer the question put to me. On the 16th March, I received my instructions to prepare further amendments of the Draft Opium Ordinance,
Bei
the
P
wa
1::00
TI
thr he
20:
the
Be Po
by the
tia
101
per
to
last
}}}*
an
the bei
41%
pla
CAD Ord
by clai
day Th
to i
eve
con
per not
por Me
Jar
nat
the
add to ↑
(
was
en
the
fed
had
the
The
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.