58
petition is addressed to the Officer Administer- ing the Government and not addressed to the hon. members of this Council, it is therefore not in order.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK--Of course I bow to your Excellency's ruling, but as the petition has to do with legislation it seems to me that it could be laid upon the table of the
Council.
SANITARY BYE-LAWS.
The AOTING Colonial Secretary laid on the table and moved the approval of a repeal of bye-laws made by the Sanitary Board under Sub-section 7 of Section 16 of the Pablic Health and Buildings Ordinance, 1903: The Bye- lays under the heading Nightsoil Carriers contained in Schedule 'B' of the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance, 1903, are hereby repealed." He said-Sir, this is rendered necessary by the new system.
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKs seconded the motion, and it was agreed to..
SUMMONING OF CHINESE ORDINANCE.
The ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY moved the following resolution:- "Whereas by section 5 of the Summoning of Chinese Ordinance, 1899 (o. 40 of 1899), it was enacted that the said Ordinance should only continue in opera- tion for the period of two years from the coming into operation of the said Ordinance and for such further period or periods as might, from time to time, be determined by Resolutio
of the Legislative Council, and whereas such operation has been continued by esolution of this Council till the 30th day of March, 1904, inclusive :-It is hereby resolved by this Council that the Summoning of Chinese Ordinano, 1899, shall be further continued in operation for the further period of two years from the 3.st day of March, 1904, inclusive." He said-I may say, sir, that the working of this Ordinancs has been found to put no hardship on anyone. It is a small convenience, and it may well continu in operation for other two years.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL seconded, and the motion was agreed to.
OPENING OF STREETS. Hon. GEESHOM STEWART asked:---- (1) Under what conditions are public com- panies or private individuals permitted to pick up and obstruct the public highways P
(2) In the event of the party responsible being dilatory in the completion of the work involving the picking up of public roads, what powers have the Government to compel them to proceed with expedition ?
(3.) Can offenders be fined so much per diem if found negligent P
(4. Are the crossings provided during the construction of the low level tramway, where the pubi highways are picked up, passed by the Public Works Department as proper and adequate for the traffic they have to carry ?
The DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS replied as follows:--
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
January 25, 1904.
"
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK moved that in the 4th line | previous stage, absolutely unknown to the ship- of Bection 3, sub-section 1, the words “Health
owner, have been a lunatio? Officer of the Port" ba substituted for "Medi- cal Officer of Health." His reason for moving this amendment was that it was the Medical Officer of the Port who ordinarily went off to board vessels, and therefore it would be con- venient that permission in such cases should emanate from him as well as from the P.C.M.O. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 20cepted the amendment and it was agreed to.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK next moved that in the 5th and 4th lines from the end of the same sub section the words "became lunatic, idiotic or | imbecile after” be deleted and the words " was apparently sane at the time of" be substituted. It occurred to him, that there were a good many cases of people who became violent during the course of a passage although when they came on board they were apparently sane. It might happen that such persons had been previously imbecile. There were a good many cases of luuacy in which the periods of sanity would last sometimes for some years, sometimes ouly for a few days.. Therefore it Was rory important that this matter should be placed on a clear basis, because it might be sugg sted thereafter that if it was proved that a person who was apparently sane at the time of embarkation and became violent during the voyage hal st воще prior period been a lunatic, idiot or imbecile, the shipowner could not escape liability. Ho wanted it made clear that the shipowner was not to be held liable in such cases
64
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the sug. gestion was hardly one that could be accepted. The words of the Bill were quite clear and specific. The hon member wanted them to substitute the words "apparently sane at the time of."
Apparently to whom to the shipowner or to some other person on board not named? To substitute these words would be to defeat the whole intention of the Bill. it was intended that the onus should be thrown upon the ship of exousing i'self for bringing here a lunatic and making him a charge upon the Colony and such excuse was to be proof that the man became lunatic after embarkation.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK replied that the party would be liable to cross-examination in a court deposing that a person was "apparently sane of justice as to why and under what circum- stances he said so; it was a matter that could be investigated.
The ATTORNEY-GENEAL remarked that the principle of the Bill was that the person who brought an imbecile here was liable; but there was a just exception made, in order to prevent hardship upon the shipowner, that provided the lunatic so brought was not a lunatic at the
time he embarked but became so on the voyage, than the owner would be held excused,
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK said that was quite
(1) Some Companies, such as the Gas Com-reasonable if it was defined what Was meant pany, have powers under agreements entered into with the Government; others, such as the Electric Tramway Company, have powers conferred upon them by Ordinance. In every case notice to and authority from the Director of Public Works is required.
(2) Companies are required to complete the work for which they have broken up any road with due diligence or with all convenient speed and to restore the road to good condition to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The powers of the Government depend upon the terms of the agreement, the couditions of the permit issued by the Director of Public Works, or the provisions of the Ordinance affecting the case.
The Tramway Ordinance 1902, section 12 provides such a penalty; other cases must depend upon the terms of the agreement or permit.
(4), No, but where it is brought to my notice that the orossings are inadequate I call upon the Company to provide increased facilities. The responsibility for any accident, damages or injuries rests with the Tramway Company (vide 8. 79 of Ordinance No, 10 of 1902).
UNDESIRABLE INMIGRANTS,
The Council went into Committee on the Bill entitled An Ordinauce to provide for the R. - covery of Charges incurred by the Colony on account of certain undesirable persons introduced into the Colony.
|
by becoming a lunatic. If it meant when any person was embarked who was apparently abso. lately sane that the shipowner was not to be held liable merely bee use such person had been subject to periods of lauacy prior to embarks- tion, that would get rid of his objection.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that "became lunatic" was a very explicit phrase.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK said the party might have been out of his mind five or six times prior to the voyage in question.
HIS EXCELLENCY did not think there was a great deal in that point; the words the hon. member wished to substitute were. really too indefinite."
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK asked whether it was intended to make shipowners liable supposing the party had been a lunatic before f
HIS EXCELLENCY said it certainly was. Only recently a case occurred in which a man who had been in a lunatic asylum here was sent back; he had become a lunatic again.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK argued that that was a case in which the shipowner had no knowledge of it, and he thought the Attorney-General would agree that it was a general principle of English law which was founded on the most elementary principles of justice that no person or body of people should be subject to a penalty unless they had got criminal intention. Why should a shipowner be liable when a person embarked, simply because he might at some
His DXCELLENCY said there was a law which said you were not to bring a person suffering from leprosy into the Colony. If you were to qualify it by saying “apparently not suffering you would never reach prohibition at all. There were several precedents for the prin- ciple of this Bill. There was the Vagranoy Ordinance in this Colny. If you had to qualify it by saying that the shipowner would be exempt if the person was apparently not destitute" the object of the Ordinance would
be defeated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL added that it did not go so far as the Alien Immigration Vom- mission. He read a cutting from the Daily Mail quite recently, in which the recommen- dations were stated and among others they re- commended that all immigrants becoming un- desirable and destitute within two years after landing in England shall be liable to expulsion and repatriation at the cost of the shipowners who brought them there.
In reply to His EXCELLENCY,
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK said he wished to press his motion if the Government intended that the shipowner should be held liable if he took a passenger in good faith without any knowledge of his being out of his mind or there being any reasou to suppose that he was so at some previous stage long before his embarkation.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that what they said was that if the man was at the time he landed a lunatic and became within three mon is thereafter chargeable to the Colony then the shipowner was liable unless he could prove that the man he brought here was not lunatic when he came on board the ship but became lunatio on the voyage. The real principle of elementary justice was that where two persons were equally innocent-in this case the shipowner and the pablic of the Colony L who
was
the approximate caus of any cost arising should bear it. The Colony owed no daty to a stranger brought here by the ship. owner, who got his passage mouey and brought him here.
On a division being taken the amendment Mr. Pollock). was defeated by a majority of 11 to 1 (Hon.
last and second last lines of the same sub-section
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK next moved that in the
the words "five thousand dollars "be altered to "one thousand dollars" He thought $5000 was a - very heavy p nalty in view of the interpretation being put upon this section. In the case of the Opium Farm the maximum pen-ity was $1,000.
The ATTORNEY-General said this was not a penalty.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK retorted that they were practically penalising the shipowner,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested they might strike out the proviso altogether.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK, said it seemed to him that the hon. member was entirely flippant and out of order. $1,000 was quite a suficient. peualty.
*
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the ho member misconceived the meaning of the pro- viso to the clause. It was put in by way of limiting the liability of the shipowner, not of imposing any liability upon him. If a lunatic was brought hers and kep: "for 40 years the shipowner would have to pay the whole of the cost of his maintenance for that period but it was thought that a maximum might be fixed aud limited and so the Government on the pro- position of Mr. Dickson put it that the liability should not exceed $5000. So far from his remarks being frivolous and out of order he thought they were extremely necessary and to the point.
Hon. Mr. POLLOCK remarked that this was a limitation of liability and he was asking for a further limitation. When he was asking for this it was entirely flippant aud out of order on the part of the "Attorney-General to ask the deletion of the clause restricting the liability to $5,000.′
HIS EXCELLENCY pointed out that the average cost of a lunatio was about $700 a year, so that $1,000 would cover little over one year's expense.
When a lunatic came to the Colony, too, he was generally a very difficult person to get rid of and stayed & good long time. He thought $2,000 was not unreasonable. In the original Bill there was
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.