270
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
pounce down on all baggage if they had Hon. Mr. STEWART said he wished to raise a information that some individual was bringing question. It appeared to him that something a case of whisky into the Colony from Shang-would have to be done to provide for possible hai-one isolated case of whisky.
injustice to people who have made forward con tracts to deliver liquors to clubs, hospitals, and so on at the old prices. Those contracts may have been entered into bona fide, and those people should be considered.
The ATTORNEY-GENE AL-Certainly, No offence is a little one at that time.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE If you had information that a case of whisky was being brought here from Shanghai, would you examine all the baggage on board ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I should say not. HIS EXCELLENCY-This section is to some- what modify the previous one.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE~My point is that unless there is reason to suppose smuggling is going on, no search should be made at all.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The meaning of the section is that in no individual case shall luggage be searched unless there is reasonable cause to suppose there are dutiable goods on board.
On Clause 32,
Hon. Mr. STE WATT suggested that the excise officers should wear badges.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT said that detectives or excise officers usually reported themselves to the. captain when they boarded a ship.
Hon. Mr. STEWART said he knew a recent, case where such an officer did not.
The ATTORNEY-GENE AL If such an officer went on board and did not explain who he was. he might probably be thrown overboard.
Hon. Mr HEWETT thought it was perfectly reasonable to allow a revenue officer not in uniform to remain on board provided he reported himself to the captain and told him why he was there. He thought the clause as it stood was quite unobjectionable.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL understood that excise officers were to wear uniform, but there might be an occasion when a man would be sent on board without a uniform.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON remarked that if a man was on special detective work he could go aboard in his ordinary clothes and report him- self. But a man boarding a ship from a Custom's boat should surely be in uniform, They could not expect a ship to be overrun with four or five men in plain clothes.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was intend- ed that these men should wear uniforms, but it was not necessary to include that in the Ordinance There might be an
occasion when a man would be sent on board without a uniform.
Hon. Mr. GRESSON-Very well, put him on board in a police launch or in some other way in which he will not be noticed.
HIS EXCELLENCY promised that a regulation should be made that excise officers should wear uniform except when on detective duty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERALmoved the omission of clause 35 as printed in the old text, and the substitution for it of clause 34. He hoped that clause would meet the objections put forward on the second reading by the hon. member who spoke against the provision as met by clause 34. HIS XCELLENCY explained that the whole of the sub-clauses about breaking in by day and night were much the same as in the → Ims Ordinance. The Magistrate has to satisfy him- self first that there is prima facie evidence to
make a case before his warrant issues. He then
can only issue it on the word of a person of repute. I think those safeguards are all that can be reasonably asked.
On part VII., of the Bill, clause 37,
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE asked if there was any way by which an informer could be punished for giving false information to the police ? A man might do so out of revenge.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-As Dr. Ho Kai says, a man would prefer to use opium for that purpose.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-There is the
power to punish a man for perjury if his information is acted upon.
The CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE -But it won't be acted upon unless he is some- body of repute.
Hon. r. OSBORNE-An informer is not a man of repute.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT That is for the Police Magistrate to decide.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The mis-informer is not a man of repute.
On the regulation being read,
Hon. Mr. H▸ WETT thought the point ought to be considered, as he knew one firm had four contracts amounting to $120,000. Those con tracts would be repudiated if the goods ordered had to pay the new duty. The Council should go slowly in interfering with those contracts.
The ATTO NEY-GENERAL replied that the revenue would come in very slowly under such conditions.
Hou. Mr. STEWART--That is no reason. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-- Yes, it is. Hop. Mr. STEWART-The contracts would have to be entered into before the proposal tax liquor was discussed.
[September 27, 1909.
by the Governor-in-Council and then come before the Legislative Council for sanction. If were not to be trusted to the those rules Governor-in-Council-
Hon. Mr. STEWART interpolated the remark there were special reasons in this case,
The COLONIAL SECRETARY replied that there were special reasons in every case.
Hon. Mr. STEWART pointed out that this was an experiment, and it was likely that many mis- takes would be made. The public would like to have a say in the framing of the regulations.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT said the Bill was a leap in the dark, and they knew it was going to affect their trade, but they did not know to what extent. They contended that the regulations should be submitted to the Legislative Council for approval. Apparently that principle was accepted at one time and a clause to that effect was in the first Bill, but it had since been withdrawn. There was no reason why later regulations should not be left to The ATTOR、 EY-ĢENERAL-It
the Governor-in-Council, but as those regula- impossible to test any such statement if put tions were new, the unofficial members were forward. On whom is the onus of proof? Hon. Mr. STEWART-The contract. The
ATTORNEY-GENERAL-The contract could not be produced. In experience I have seen two sets of vouchers-one headed for customs purposes."
would
be
Hou. Mr. STEWART-You would not find it in this Colony, which has liitherto had no Customs. They couldnot possibly be so clever as to imagine before this thing came up that we were going to institute a Customs.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL guarantee?
What is your
The Hon. Mr. STEWART-They could pro- duce their documents and papers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Can you give me any precedent for such a provision?
Hou. Mr. STEWART This is something new. It seems to me that injustice will be done to those people.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-If such a course were adopted you would not have any revenne for years.
on. Mr. STEWART-No. Suppose a man has undertaken to supply a club or regiment or hospital with brandy until the end of the year. it would certainly press hardly on him if he should have to continue the supply at the old prices when the import duty has been imposed.
HIS EXCELLENCY-What suggestion have you for dealing with such a case?
Hon. Mr. STEWART The Governor-in-Conn- cil should consider such application made ou the ground that the contracts had been made before these proposals were mooted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-We propose to ask the Committee to give power to the Governor- in-Council in clause 54 to grant certain exemp. tions. I most candidly think the case you put is not one that should be dealt with under these powers.
Hon. Mr. STEWART-It should be considered. The COLONIAL SECRETARY-If they make applications they will be considered.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-There is one point I would like to mention. The liquor on board ships is not to pay duty, but I was informed that it was contemplated to close up all spirit rooms as long as the ships were in port. If such a thing is not considered necessary in Singapore or Colombo I think it would be an unwise step to take here. It would certainly be resented. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-There is nothing. in the Bill referring to that.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-No..
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-At the present moment no ship in the harbour has, strictly speaking, any right to sell liquor without a
licence.
L.
The clause was adopted.
Hon. Dr. Ho KAI moved that a new sub- section be inserted providing that "such rules shall be published in the Gazette and laid before the Legislative Council, but not to come i to force until approved by resolution of that Council.” Such a provison had existed in the first draft of the Bill, but had been withdrawn without any reason. This was a new Bill and the regu- lations made were in the nature of experiments. Unofficial members wore, therefore, anxious to have the regulations well considered before they were passed.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY said it was the old question. Regulations should not be made
;
unanimousin urging that that clause in the first print of the Bill should be inserted again. Hon. Mr. USBORNE thought the Colony was more or less agreed that this Ordinance for should pass provided its raising revenue administration was worked intelligently. The whole success of the measure depended upon details and the manner in which the officials concerned carried out the regulations. Unless the regulations were first submitted to the public they were bound to create considerable friction..
HIS EXCELLENCY pointed out that if the re- gulations were passed by the Legislative Coun- cil they had the force of law, and did not need to be considered by the Executive Council. It might be that the regulations would need to be altered from day to day, and for that reason he thought it advisable that they should be referred to the Executive Council. ny member of the Legislative Council had always the power to bring forward a resolution amending any particular regula- tion. He did not see that any power was taken from the Legislative Couocil, neither did he see the object of referring them to the Fxecu- tive Council if they were to be again subjected to the approval of the Legislative Council.
Hon, Mr. HEWETT said that discussion in the Council had resulted in modifications in the Bill and it might be that the regulations might also require great modification. They had been drawn up by officials and in some cases might need correction. There was no reason why they should not be submitted to the Legislative Council. It was entirely a new departure.
Hon. Mr. STEWART stated that the Bill It might might divert trade from, the Colony. change the whole course of some trades.
Hon. Mr. SBORNE said they only asked to see those regulations until such time as, they knew the law was working smoothly.
HIS EXCELLENCY said if regulations were to be made they should be made by one body or the other. The practice was that if any member of that Council took exception to any regulation made by the Executive Council it was open to him to give notice and raise a debate on the subject. If they thought too great powers had been given to the Governor-in-Council the clause they had been discussing was one on which to raise the question.
The Hon. Mr. HEWETT said they only asked to see the regulations because it was the first time they were framed. When everything was working smoothly the Governor-in-Council was the proper authority to alter the regulations.
Hon. Mr. OSBORN said it might be proposed to "seal up" ships while in port,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that they could not conceive an unreasonable rogulation like that.
Hon. Mr. OSB ENE stated that it had actually been put forward.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT said they did not wish to labour the point, but the unofficial members considered that an unwise regulation might injure the trade of the port, and for that reason they submitted that the gulations should be discussed by the Legislative Council.
HIS EXCELLENCY expressed the opinion that it was not feasible that the Governor-in-Council should make regulations which should afterwards be submitted to the Legislative Council. The
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.