16
Thus there are more than the usual reasons why, before this law is passed, the Legislature should be amply satisfied: (1) that sufficient need for it has been made manifest; (2) that there is a reasonable pro- spect of its fulfilling its object; and (3) that it does not in itself tend to originate mischiefs.
As to the first proposition, I must here state that I am cognizant of the Petition recently presented to the Executive by certain influential Chinese merchants, praying for legislation in the direction now proposed, and of their representations as to the lax state of trade morality into which their countrymen have drifted. I am impressed with the importance of yielding to such representations when practicable, but having had the advantage, through the courtesy of the Attorney-General, of perusing the document, I scarcely think that the petitioners have either made out a case for the exceptional legislation they demand, or that they would bave asked for it had they fully understood its probable effects. Nor do I think that, even if an ex- ceptional remedy is necessary, the right one has been adopted. I shall say a few words on these points further on.
Turning to the object of the Bill, although it has not, while I write, been disclosed by the Attorney- General in a "statement of objects and reasons," I think I shall not err in assuming its main purpose to be the public disclosure, under compulsion of penalties, of the names of all partners in Chinese trading firms, mainly with the view to prevent frauds upon creditors of such firms through secrecy of membership, by means of the evidence to be supplied by the official register.
Sections XXII and XXIII which prescribe the modus operandi are as follows :-
"XXII-A register of all Chinese shops, hongs, and other places of business in the Colony shall be 'kept at the Registrar-General's office in such manner as the Registrar-General shall think most convenient "for easy reference.
66
il
“XXIII.—Within thirty days after the commencement of this Ordinance, the master or minager of ‘every Chinese shop, hong, or place of business in the Colony shall furnish to the Registrar-Generel the “following particulars for entry in the register
"(1) The name under which the business is to be conducted.
(2) The locality, with the name of the street and number of the house where the business is to
"be conducted,
"(3) The full names and native places of all partners in the business, with their several places of
"residence in the Colony and elsewhere.
"(4) The full names and native place of the manager, if any, of the business and his place of
"residence.
66 Upon any new Chinese shop, hong, or place of business being opened, and upon the re-opening of *any shop, hong, or place of business by a new firm of partnership, the master or manager of the business shall, within thirty days thereafter, furnish to the Registrar-General the foregoing particulars for entry in "the register."
<f
Passing over section XXII with the observation that a scheduled form of the required book would have perhaps been more a satisfatory guide than the direction to the Registrar-General to keep a book “in such manner as he shall think most convenient for easy reference." I come to section XXIII, where I find that the compulsory act of registration is imposed upon the "master or manager of every Chinese shop, hong, or place of business," and not upon the partners personally. It may not, perhaps, be hyper-criti- cism of a penal Ordinance to point out that all the terms comprised in the sentence placed between inverted commas are left without interpretation, as it is obvious that more than one of them may under certain circumstances be difficult to define. Such an omission can no doubt be easily supplied-but what answer can be given to the inquiry whith next suggests itself, viz. :-Is the evidence supplied by the register intended to be conclusive or only “primâ fucie” evidence of membership in a firm at any given dute, and ergo of liability for its debts? I italicise this query, because it goes to the very root of the utility of the Bill, the provisions of which omit to afford any materials for a reply.
It is clear that if, on the one hand, the evidence of the register is meant to be only primâ facie, i.e., susceptible of contradiction, the main object of registration must fail, since it would not prevent the raising of issues equally difficult and lengthy with those which have to be tried occasionally under the present system. It is equally clear, on the other, that to make such evidence conclusive is to place it within the power of any master or manager" fraudulently or mistakenly to register persons as partners without giving them any opportunity of being heard in their defence. The Bill cannot contemplate such an enor- mous injustice. Yet, how is the difficulty to be got over? For even if it were possible to evade the particular phase of it, which lies on the surface of the draft in its present form, by compelling each partner to register personally (a mandate which would be almost equivalent either to decreeing that no persons residing out of the Colony should hold partnership shares in firms within it, or to an attempt to coerce by legislation persons beyond the jurisdiction of the law), you would only remove the difficulty a step lower: for it is impossible to suppose that, whatever the system of registration adopted, there would not arise in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.