THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Mr. Johnson here asked witness if he could get out.
Mr. Francis objected. The defendant was only charged with something that occurred in Hongkong.
The Magistrate-Mr. Johnson is leading up to it.
Witness, continuing We could not get out of the cabin as it was locked. On arriving in Hongkong we were still locked up and were kept in the cabin until yesterday afternoon. The police came on board and we were brought ashore.
I
By Mr. Francis-One day we were let out on deck coming from Foochow. I and the other (man had nothing to do with the women. We all stowed in the fore peak. I went away last month in the Chingtu. I was a cook in a private boarding house in Hongkong. Before that I had not been to Japan for two years. did not pay my passage from Kobe because I had no money. I have no property in Hong- kong, but I have a friend. When I arrived in Hongkong, I had about a dollar and fifty cents. D. K. Matsui-I am boarder at No. 9, Stanley Street. I went on board the Chinglu yester; day. The keeper of the boarding house asked me to go. That was about 8 a.m. When I got on board I first saw a Japanese boatswain-Ko- mini Tangi. I saw the captain. When the boatswain took me to the captain's cabin I went in and the captain said Hure you come to take away those stowaways?" I said "Yes." I then asked the captain how much Passage money he wanted. He said $100. I said for all? He said no, 100 for each; be wanted $800. I said it was too much and offered him from $15 to $20 each. The captain said he would send them back to Japan and told me to go on shore. Imigi, a boarding house keeper, and the boatswain were present. L
Mr. Francis-What do you do? What is your business ?
|
Mr. Francis objected to the evidence. The, captain did not understand Japanese.
Witness-We.did not take any one on shore with us; we were told to go on shore. I went on board to arrange the passage for those per- sons on board. I was going to pay the passage
money.
Mr. Francis asked no questions. Inspector Hanson-I went on board the Chingtu at 12.30 yesterday afternoon. I saw the chief officer on deck. I asked for the captain. I was told the captain was on shore. I then asked where the Japanese women were and he pointed aft. I went aft and down into the steerage. I found a door on the star- board side locked. The mate was standing at the top of the ladder looking down. I asked him what was meant by locking up people in port.
Mr. Francis-I object to that evidence. Witness--The mate produced the key and opened the door at my request. I found six Japanese women in their bunks in the cabin. An inner door was then unlocked by the mate, and the two men were then found. The first witness was one of the men.
Mr. Francis-The case for the defence is very simple, your Worship. It is simply that we were bound by law, by a local Ordinance, to keep these people on board and not to allow them to land until we were able to ascertain if they had any means of subsistence and able to maintain themselves for the next six months. The Vagraney Ordinance is quite clear on the subject. Section 1 of Ordinance 12 of 1888 says " Every master of a ship landing or allowing to land in this colony any person other than a Chinese (these are Japanese] who at the time of his landing is obviously destitute of means of subsistence or does actually be come so within a period of six months from the date of landing shall be liable to repay to the Government of this colony all costs and charges What are you doing in a Hongkong boarding incurred by the colony in consequence of such house?—I am not employed there. I have no
person becoming a vagrant unless such master work to do now.
satisfy the Court that he made due enquiry as that he had reason to believe such person was to the person so lauded or allowed to land, and possessed of moans of subsistence." Now, as your Worship has heard, the complainant in this particular case-and it is the same with reference to all the other seven cases—was a
Witness-I am a seaman.
Are you employed in a boarding house-yes or no? No, I pay for my lodging.
What ship were you in last The Niigata
Maru.
How long is it since you left her ?—About six months..
What have you been doing in Hongkong for six months ?—I have had business in Singapore
and I bave been there.
What was your business--to sell women?—No. Taking women backwards and forwards from Singapore and Hongkong?-No.
What was your business then ?-My friend is the keeper of a curio shop and I went to do business with him.
Were you going to take away the whole of the eight stowaways and pay their passages Yes.
And had you the money to pay $15 or $20 for each ?—Yes, the boarding house keeper gave me the money.
It was the boarding house man's money ?- Yes.
He had arranged for these women to be sent here, had he not-No, I do not think so.
How did you or he know they were on board? A message was sent by the boatswain (a Japa. nese) of the Chingtu immediately the steamer arrived here..
When you came ashore you went and gave information to the police, I suppose?—No.
Who did P-I do not know. What were these women going to do at the boarding house?—I do not know; it is nothing to do with me.
Why did the boarding house keeper ask you to see after this business? Why did he not go and do it himself?--He was very busy that day.
You had nothing to do with the business your self? No.
U Kai Chi said-I am a boarding-house keeper at 6, Pottinger Street. A Japanese boatswain came to my house on Thursday night. He came from the Chingtu. I went on board the Chingtu yesterday morning. The last witness went with me. The boatswain took me to the captain. As I could not speak English Matsui spoke to the captain. Matsui explained to me in Japanese what he said,
|
.
November 19, 1898.
and the captain of the stean that we were not able to tak No arrangement was made simply because the Consul could no thing for them and they could not show an of subsistence. Before this letter wa the Police had got information and came on board shortly after twelve o'clock noon and took the people away. Of course false impri sonment or detention of any person constitutes a misdemeanour, unless it is justified by law. We say we were perfectly justified in keeping these people on board. We would have been guilty of a breach of the law if we had allowed them to land if they were destitute, if they were with out means of subsistence, and until we had satisfied ourselves that there were persons on shore who would provide them with means of subsistence. We communicated immediately with the proper person, the Japanese Consul These people who came on board simply wanted to pay their passage money and made no offer, no guarantee, as to the means of subsistence of Ordinance we were perfectly justified in keep- these people, so that I submit that under that ing them on board until we had satisfactory
information as to whether or not, in the words of the Ordinance, such persons were possessed of sufficient means of subsistence." They were not detained on board for their passage money at all; they were simply detained under this Ordinance.
The captain simply kept these people from troubling him about the stowaway by asking that exorbitant price of $100 for each person. It was not a question of releasing them, but to avoid what your Worship. may remember happened in a former case about twelve months ago, when the captain of a Ger- man steamer was made responsible for the whole cost of maintaining in this colony a number of vagrants and the whole cost of sending them back to Japan.
Therefore, in our case we were justified in detaining them under this Ordinance and we were guilty of no offence. There is no provision in the Ordinance for our handing them over to the Police or to anyone else, but the Ordinance simply says they shall not land or be allowed to land. We can only prevent them from landing by keeping them locked up on board the ship. If they had been allowed their liberty they would have run about the ship and got over the side and escaped and the captain would have been
ན་
The Magistrate-You call no witnesses ? Mr. Francis-No, your Worship. The Magistrate—That is your defence P Mr. Francis—Yes.
The Magistrate-Am I to take it that the decision in the one case will serve for the whole lot ?
Mr. Francis-Yes.
The Magistrate-Captain Innes, you have been most ably defended and a most ingenions defence has been set up for you, that you did it the landing of vagrants. Your simple duty having an honest regard for the British law on
as a shipmaster was to have brought these people up to the Police Court as stowaways and to have prosecuted them, and that would have cleared you, and no one knows that better than your own counsel.
Mr. Francis-Would your Worship be so good as to point out any law
stowaway in this ship from Kob down to Hong-liable. kong. The first witness admitted he was a stow- away, because he had no money to pay his pass- age. He had only one dollar and a half in his and directly contrary to law for the captain of pocket when he arrived here. It is distinctly
any vessel to land any one who is not Chinese who has no means of subsistence for at least six months. The master is bound to make inquiry into their condition. The only justification he can have if he allows such persons to land, and they are found afterwards not to have sufficient into their means of subsistence and ascertained meaus of subsistence, is that he made inquiry that they had means of subsistence for six months before they were allowed to land. These stowaways were found at Foochow. As locked up; they were simply kept below in the soon as this vessel came into port they were cabin while at Foochow they were allowed to go on deck on the way down here, and they were locked in a third-class cabin on arrival here simply to prevent them landing. They that they were on board was immediately re- were not confined in any other way, and the fact
ported to the ship's agents and the Japanese Consul was immediately communicated with. On the 12th November, 1896, Messrs. Butter- field and Swire wrote as follows to the Japanese sight stowaways--six women and two men-- Consul:-" Sir,-We beg to inform you that have been found on board our steamer, the Chingtu, which arrived from Moji and Foochow if you wish to take charge of them." The Consul this morning. They are still on board the steamer
was unable to
go on board himself, but he sent his secretary on board to see these men and women. The secretary went on board and after returning yesterday afternoon the Japanese Consul wrote to Messrs Butterfield and Swire-Gentlemen, In reply to your kind letter of yesterday with regard to the eight stowaways I beg to state that Mr. Amano, Secretary to the Consul, was despatched to the steamer yesterday afternoon and an arrangement was made between him
|
The Magistrate-Mr. Francis, there is a law and people have been prosecuted under it. I am not going to point out any law.
Mr. Francis-I positively deny that there is any such law.
The Magistrate-You could have brought them up here and prosecuted them. Therefore, the defence is absolutely and utterly useless and groundless. I was surprised that the Japa Consul had been communicated with. Japanese Consul possesses no extraterr rights here. If the man had been a Fren have held good; he could have been or a Turk or a German the same course
here and prosecuted. As to the idea out of regard for our Vagrancy - think it is useless: Your action unjustifiable in keeping these The reasons are not far to regular trader to Japan and we into trouble with the Japanese ant perfectly competent for the Japanese authorities to search your vessel in their safeguard their own law!
way they
orities. Entr
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.