Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 773

20

Extract from Daily Press,” 14th January, 1875.

We publish in our columns this morning a letter addressed to the Hon. J. GARDINER AUSTIN, the Colonial Secretary, upon the Victoria Registration Ordinance, 1874. When the draft of this Ordinance was first issued we ventured to object to some of its clauses, and maintained that it was a crude and ill-digested measure, and calculated not only to fail most lamentably in effecting the object sought after, but also likely to be prolific of difficulty and injustice. In his very ablo letter, Mr. HAYLLAR has, at much greater length, exposed the weaknesses and faults of the Bill. With as little reiteration of first objections to this measure as possible, we will briefly notice some fallacies and faults the writer has exposed which were not then dwelt on.

Prefatorily, it should be said there is room for doubt whether the poorer class of Chinese are in favour of any legislation in this direction, and, as Mr. HAYLLAR remarks, the merchants who presented the petition for it would scarcely have done so "had they fully understood its probable effects.”

Legislation of this kind frequently misses its mark, either through the ambiguity of its clauses or by the creation of fresh and unforeseen difficulties, This Bill is certainly of such a character; if it became law it would speedily prove to be unworkable. And unless there is some prospect of a Bill fulfilling the object it was designed for, the sooner it is consigned to oblivion the better. This measure has been framed, it is to be presumed, with a view to prevent fraud by making the registration of all the partners in every Chinese hong, shop, or other place of business compulsory. Like Mr. HAYLLAR, we too object to the penal aspect of the Bill, but putting that aside, for the moment, would it be too much to ask how the business of registration is going to be carried out efficiently? A great proportion, probably far the largest, of the Chinese retail shops, and many of the wholesale warehouses, are founded on the co-operative principle—in this sense, at least, that the capital is subscribed by a great number of people, and the business is carried on by a manager, who is also usually a partner. Now it is more than likely that, as these petty capitalists would not feel inclined to make themselves liable for inore than they originally invested, they would in many cases resort to subterfnge to conceal their names, or substitute others for them. At all events, the Bill would aut as an incentive to deceit. Not only would it be found to act in the way we have indicated, but it would be utterly impracticable and inefficient, owing to the endless and incessant changes that are constantly neces- sarily occurring in the composition of Chinese firms. Surely it is the acme of folly to attempt to apply English ideas to Chinese practices.

Mr. HAYLLAR shows very plainly that the new Ordinance would raise difficulties from its application to the law of partnership. His utterances on the subject of dormant partners are especially trenchant. He points out distinctly enough the great injustice that would be perpetrated by the "incautious registration under compulsion of persons occupying such positions." According to Chinese customs, he remarks, these persous do not intend to risk more than they have subscribed-it may be a few dollars-they do not mean to become partners in our acceptation of the term, and are not, therefore, “held to have incurred any such liability as our law imposes." It will be apparent, then, to any practical mind, that no measure of the sort ought to be devised without special reference to, and study of, the trade customs of the Chinese. Another objection pointed out is worthy of attention. Most of us are aware how readily some of the policemen and other of the lower Government employés avail themselves of opportunities for extortion, and the Bill will infallibly give them too many such. And, again, the poorer class of tradesmen would be the chief sufferers: as, through ignorance or poverty, they would frequently neglect to register.

We referred at some length, on a former occasion, to the power over the trade in Hongkong which would be placed in the hands of the Chinese at Canton and other parts of China by the passing of this Bill. Every firm which had a partner resident in China might be mercilessly squeezed by the mandarins there, without being able to resist or obtain redress. As the Chinese in Hongkong are British subjects, it is the honden duty of the Government to protect them from foreign exactions. It is none the less so that the interests of the English residents are in no slight degree involved in the matter. Any enactment that strikes a blow at the trade or the interests of the commercial community should be strenuously resisted. But it is to be hoped the Registration Ordinance will not be persevered with. Very truly does Mr. HAYLLAR observe: "No statute can forma a substitute for business prudence and foresight on the one side, or on the other do much that is effectual to stem the current of fraudulent ingenuity." It is wise to let well alone : better far to "bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." The real need of such a law has not yet been made out. And, in the meantime, much ought to be left to the discretion of the Judge in cases where Chinese are concerned, and no too rigid enactment can be expected to operate fairly or well. The evils complained of by the Chinese Petitioners are not so urgent that we should be called on to do a great wrong to effect a little right. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum.

Appendix E.

Petition presented by the Chinese Community in 1874.

Li Tak-ch'eung, Lam King-wan, Ch'an Sui-nam, Kwok Ts'ung, Wong Kw'an-t'ong, Lam Yam-ki, and Young Lau Ko, representing the whole Chinese commercial community of Hongkong, present a petition.