Sessional_Paper_1885-1886 — Page 117

114

7. The returns of gambling show 254 cases against 104 in 1884, and 86 in 1883. This amount would be larger, were not cases of Lotteries now dealt with by Sunmons instead of by Warrant on summary arrest; they therefore appear in the Magistrates' and not in the Police Returns. The smallness of the numbers in 1883 and 1884, is probably due to the Government Order 1071 of 1883 directing, The simplest plan would be to let the Chinese alone and to let them gamble in peace, prosecuting only in those cases when the surrounding circumstances and notoriety left no doubt as to the nature of any particular house."

8. In connection with the riots just before my return to the Colony in 1884, I observe that it was considered expedient to seize the arms stored in various Chinese shops. The repeal by Ordinance 8 of 1882 of the unrepealed sections of Ordinance 9 of 1857 appears to have resulted in the probably unintended result of also repealing Ordinance 1 of 1855 which contained some valuable clauses con- cerning the sale of arms and the manufacture of explosives which might well have been enforced in cases of emergency. I have had during the past year to call attention to the want of any preventive measures against the storage of fire crackers and other dangerous commodities in buildings in the populated portion of the Colony.

9. There is a point which has arisen during the past year to which I desire to draw attention. In this Colony so few matters connected with Police work are dealt with otherwise than by Ordinances, that there is a want of that elasticity which can be obtained in England by the exercise of a power to pass by-laws. A notable instance arose in the constant necessity in a commercial Colony like this, of vessels desiring to discharge or take in cargo at night. For over forty years the local law has prohibited it, but, from precedents dating back in my own experience to nearly twenty years, this obvious.necessity has been recognised by the Chief of Police granting permits when necessary. During the past year the applications, formerly made by well known firms connected with the principal lines of steamers, increased fifty per cent., and were becoming so numerous that it was clear that, unless some system was inaugurated, every firm that occasionally shipped goods would be in possession of a permit. Now each perinit practically represents some six cargo boats. The wisdom of our pre- decessors recognised that in these waters, so liable to piratical attacks, it was expedient that there should at night time be a clear belt of water between the shipping and the water frontage. Inci- dentally I may point out that in one respect the status of this Colony is almost exceptional: it is one of the very few civilised places in the world where the trade of the Port is absolutely free from all Customs' dues. Hence in other harbours goods can only be landed at certain recognised points or under certain well known restrictions. Here cargo boats can come alongside any portion of the four miles frontage of the City. Being desirous of reducing the practice of the issue of Permits to a system, I, with the permission of the Government, inserted an advertisement in the newspapers requesting the expression of views either for or against the landing or shipping of cargo at night .e., between 9 P.M. and 6 A.M.

The result for a Commercial Colony was somewhat surprising; not a single letter in favour of the practice was received, whilst objections to the course were sent in. It was therefore proposed to do away with the system of granting general permits available at all times, and to sub- stitute special permits to be granted when circumstances demanded that the dispatch of any particular vessel should be accelerated, and for this purpose every facility was given. When this was made known, the Chamber of Commerce for the first time took up the question and argued that, as Hongkong was a free port, the consignees of vessels were at liberty to land or discharge cargo as they pleased. The matter having been referred to the law officers, the opinion was that there was no authority of law for the granting of permits. An impression appeared to prevail that this implied that boats could discharge cargo at night. The result of a test case, that was taken before a Magistrate, whose decision was not appealed against, would seem to show that this prevalent impression is erroneous, and that the law distinctly prohibits boats from being within one hundred yards of the shore at night except. at certain specified public or at all private wharves. Being fully aware that the prosperity of this Colony is solely dependent on its trade, I have taken on myself the responsibility of not carrying out the law to its full extent, but I trust that the matter may soon be placed on a sound basis, and that the two equally vital points of protecting the facilities of the trade of the Colony, and of protecting the City from sudden piratical raids, may meet with due consideration.

10. The same legal dictum of the absence of any authority of law equally applies to other matters. on which the Chief of Police for the time being has heretofore endeavoured to assist the industries or necessities of the Colony, viz.: the granting of permits (a.) for the temporary obstruction of a roadway by the transit of heavy goods, (b.) for allowing boats to lie near certain wharves at night for the accommodation of the officers and men of the various men-of-war in Harbour, (e.) for the removal by the Chinese of the bones of the dead to the mainland. In none of these cases is there any authority of law for granting permits, but it is clearly desirable that such power should exist.

11. Another matter wherein the practice of the Colony existing for many years has been upset, is the granting of permits for (a.) Chinese Religious Ceremonies, Theatricals, and (6.) Religious Processions and Festivals. The power to grant permits for the former (a.) was vested in the Governor or Registrar General by Ordinance 6 of 1857, but by the amended Ordinance 8 of 1858, the power was vested in the Governor only. The matters referred to in (b.) were by Ordinance 14 of 1845 in the hands of the Chief Magistrate of Police, and by proclamation this was changed to the Chief of the