Q. I cannot follow that. and such registration can't be and coolies alike-
( 98 )
Assuming that the registration is for the public benefit made thorough unless by making it penal for masters
A. I think I must leave it to somebody else to assume. I don't think I have any right to assume.
Q.-Under section 26 of the Licensing Ordinance (No. 24 of 1898) you will find that a person who drinks in unlicensed premises is a person who renders himself liable to a fine. Well, evidently the object of that is that that person should be punished because he is encouraging an unlicensed person. Why should not a master who encourages an unlicensed or unregistered coolie to enter his service be equally liable to a penalty?
A. There is no particular reason.
Q.-I argue it this way that a person drinking in unlicensed premises is encouraging a man to sell drinks in an unlicensed house to the disadvantage of the community.
A.—If the law is made, the man should be subject to a penalty, but the question is whether such a law should be made.
The Chairman. What I mean is a law for the benefit of the majority.
Witness. But is it for the benefit of the majority?
The Chairman. We think it is. It is competent for the State to make any law it likes.
Witness. I would obey the law under protest of course. If you are going to have a law, you must carry it out.
The Chairman.—In the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, No. 21 of 1896, there is a "Table U" in the Schedule containing regulations for the licens- ing and controlling of boats, etc. The term "boats" includes cargo boats, lighters, cinder boats, lighters, fishing boats, trading hulks, and rowing boats plying for hire of passengers only. The first of these regulations says that all the boats referred to in the regulations must be duly licensed, and then it goes on to say that no person shall engage or let out for hire any boat unless it has been licensed.
Then comes section nine which reads that any breach of these regulations shall be punishable by penalty not exceeding $100 or, in default, an offender shall be liable to three months' imprisonment. Now, there we have a distinct instance of a person who engages the services of an unlicensed boat being liable to a penalty. Doesn't that seem to be a precedent? That, according to what you said, is a direct abrogation of the right of unfettered contract.
A.-It doesn't prove that that Ordinance is a good Ordinance, nor does it prove that the proposed Ordinance is to be a good Ordinance.
The Chairman.-It proves that the persons who passed that Ordinance thought it
necessary.
Witness.No.
The Chairman.--Yes, it does. That Ordinance has been in force for a period of ten years and as it at present stands, it looks as though these regulations had worked with some degree of success, doesn't it?
Witness.--I suppose so.
The Chairman. What I say then is that, in an analogous case, success would also be a likely result.
Witness. I don't think success has attended these regulations. If you want a sampan to go to a ship, you can't get one.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.