223 
letter means the Rubber Dealers’ Enactment and not the Praedial Produce 
Enactment. As far as I can ascertain the Chinese Kedai Keeper was 
charged under the Rubber Dealers’ Enactment for buying without a 
licence, for which the penalty is a fine up to one thousand dollars. If the 
evidence had been sufficient he could have been charged either under the 
Penal Code for receiving stolen porperty knowing it to have been stolen or 
under the Stolen Property and Habitual Criminals Enactment , in either 
of which case, he could have been imprisoned. I should not advise in this 
case that any further proceedings should be taken as it is a considerable 
time since the original case was tried, and I doubt whether anv useful 
result would be obtained ” . ' J 
I have, etc., 
(Sgd) H. C. E. Zacharias, 
The Secretary, 
The Planters’ Association of Malaya, 
Kuala Lumpur. 
Secretary. 
Klang, 
April 8th, 1910. 
Sir, Some time ago Estate managers were asked to report any 
rubber thefts which came before their notice. 
On the 7th instant two Vallambrosa coolies were caught and 
convicted of stealing 2 l / 2 lbs. of scrap rubber, they were sentenced to 
three months’ imprisonment or pay a fine of $50. The fine was paid 
at once presumably by the Chinaman who buys it. This sort of thine 
should not be allowed. 
I have, etc., 
(Sgd.) H. W. Bailey. 
, Mr. Parkinson thinks that if the receiver is let off with a small 
fine on a clear case, it was a direct inducement to steal rubber. 
Mr. H. W. Bailey suggests that Government should be asked to 
amend the Enactment so as to abolish the option of a fine. 
Mr. Day points out that this would be awkward as a dealer late 
m taking out his licence might thus have to go to prison. 
Mr. Cumming thinks it was not advisable continually to harass 
Government on small matters, and said that people should get proper 
legal advice and bring their cases home. 
The matter is left to rest there. 
7. PRAEDIAL PRODUCE ENACTMENT. 
Mr. Day remarks that it has come to his knowledge that some 
proceedings have been taken under the Praedial Produce Protection 
nactment, which have not resulted in a conviction owing to the fact 
that rubber is not specifically mentioned. He would suggest that the 
Government be asked to amend the definition of the word ‘produce ’ 
in that Enactment by adding after the word “roots” the wofds “and 
any other produce of any plant or trees”. 
