Sessional_Paper_1884 — Page 189

( 100 )

2. The prisoners were charged under § XVIII of Ordinance 14 of 1870, with earrying deadly weapons not being owners of night passes, and the charge was dismissed by the Magistrate, (P. M. Case No. 520. of 1847).

3. If there is no restriction on these heavily armed gangs of smugglers prowling about the waters, or other parts of the Colony than the City of Victoria, it is probable that some night there will be a deadly collision between them and the Police, who might well mistake them for a body of burglars or pirates.

I have the honour to be,

Hon. F. STEWART, LL.D.,

Acting Colonial Secretary,

&e..

ke.

Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,

W. M. DEANE,

Captain Superintendent of Police.

SIR,

Supplementary Letter from Mr. Creagh, explaining his Report on page 91.

HONGKONG, 21st April, 1883.

At the conclusion of the evidence which I gave on the 14th instant before the Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the Opium Smuggling into China, the members of the Commission requested me to furnish written answers to some of the questions which had been asked in the course of the inquiry. Those questions, of which I made a note the same day, I will now answer sériatim; and I regret that an unusual press of work, on the eve of my departure from the Colony, has prevented my giving earlier attention to this matter.

1. If smuggling was as common as you say, why were cases not reported more frequently by the Police?

Answer. It is a Police officer's duty, (i), (by virtue of his office) to discover and report offences against the laws of the Colony; (ii), (by Police regulations) he is required to ascertain and report injuries roads telegraphs, &c.; (iii), (by local custom) he is expected to report any unusual occurrence which comes to his knowledge which he may consider of interest to the head of his department or to Government. As smuggling unaccompanied by breach of the Colonial laws does not come under either the first or second head, a Police Officer is under no obligation to make himself acquainted with the circumstances of the trade. And although under the third head an Officer might consider it proper to report any new phase of the traffic, or any case of smuggling accompanied by extraordinary circumstances which might have come to his knowledge, he probably would not (and in fact several Inspectors did not) report ordinary smuggling at all.

2. In your report of the 21st June, 1877, you say "naval engagements of this description have been witnessed from the shores of this Colony, and smugglers when worsted in the encounter have been known to fly to our waters for protection" you then instance a case which however did not occur in the sight of the Colony, but outside the Liümún. Why not mention a case in point if such cases were known?

Answer. The sentence quoted contains two assertions. The instance given was in illustration of the latter rather than the former of them. I probably did not consider it necessary to support the other statement, as I knew that some (and thought that most) old residents had observed the battles referred to.

3. In the same letter you said that vessels engaged in smuggling were specially constructed and equipped for that purpose, how did you gain this information ?

Answer. I was informed they were specially constructed and armed for smuggling, and that they were faster than ordinary traders. I obtained this information from officers of the Chinese Customs, and in conversation with Inspectors of Police. From the latter I accepted no general statements, but inquired regarding particular vessels which I had seen at Yaumáti and other villages, and which they had boarded and inspected. I myself observed that the boats were apparently of a strong build, and that they carried a much larger crew than ordinary traders.