🚀 go-pugleaf

in their
    addresses to the Grand Juries, and on sentencing prisoners, I did
    as I thought it my duty to do. I traced the cause of the kidnaping
    to the demand for domestic bond servants, as Dr. Eitel calls them,
    and for brothels ... I said on the 7th of October I expressly
    indicate these two, and these two only, as the specific classes of
    slavery in Hong Kong as then rapidly increasing ... I cannot find
    a sentence in it which indicates any attempt by the Court to reach
    criminally cases of concubines."

    "All that I contended for in what I then said beyond punishing
    kidnapers was to bring within the cognizance of the law those
    who bought from such kidnapers,--the receivers of such stolen
    'chattels,'--leaving such buyers to set up and prove a
    justification if they could."

    "On the 31st of March, 1880, prisoners in four cases of
    kidnaping,--one most harrowing,--were sentenced. I there lamented,
    and I am sure every right-minded man will concur with me, that
    it was the fact that the very poor were punished and the rich
    escaped. In that case it clearly appeared that one Leong Ming
    Aseng, apparently a respectable tradesman, at all events a man of
    means, had given $60 for a young girl aged 13 years, to one of the
    kidnapers, and he took her away beyond the reach of her distracted
    mother under circumstances from which he must have known that the
    child had been kidnaped. But although the facts were known at the
    Police Court, and this man remained exceeding ten days afterward
    in the Col