75
will look up a certain notice of Requisition and Control dated 13th March, 1918, and headed “Colonial Secretary's Office, Hongkong" he will see that it was signed by the Honourable Claud Severn and stated that the Governor of Hongkong, etc., etc.
Under this document how does he make out that the actual requisition was
carried out by the Commodore? "
On the 10th December, 1917, the Solicitors for the Wollowra Steamship Company, in which Mr. Burkill was interested, wrote to the Commodore :-
“S.S. Wollowra. The above ship has been requisitioned by the Admiralty'
and they proceeded to ask for certain information.
11
Messrs. Burkill's steamer Patriot was requisitioned under the following letter addressed separately to each owner :-
"H. M. DOCKYARD.
With reference to the letter of the Colonial Secretary dated 13th March, 1918, I am directed by the Commodore to inform you that your vessel is requisi- tioned and will be brought under the Hongkong Liner Requisition Scheme."
On the 19th April, 1918, Solicitors, definitely stating that they represented the owners of the S.S. Manapouri, Castlefield, Wollowra, and Patriot, wrote:
"Hongkong Shipping Control Scheme. Our clients are at present unaware under what legislative authority the above Scheme is being carried out and would be grateful for some enlightenment on the subject.
The Government replied :-
"As to the question of legal authority, the ships have been requisitioned on behalf of, and under instructions from, His Majesty's Government, who have instructed this Government to superintend their management. In these circumstances this Government must refer you to His Majesty's Government on the point of the legal authority for the requisitioning. This Government has definite instructions that the remunera- tion to vessels under the local scheme is to approximate to that paid to the larger and more important class of vessels on the China Coast which are under the Imperial Liner Requisition Scheme."
•
35. At the meeting in Shanghai, which has been referred to, Mr. Moller said:
"In December, 1919, a test case was instituted against the Government in the
Hongkong Courts.
Immediately upon legal action being taken the Colonial Secretary approached the owners through the Shipowners Protection Association with a view and a request to stay such legal pro- ceedings for such period as would give him time to communicate with the Home Government with a view to settling the matter amicably, pointing out that it was inadvisable to continue expensive litigation when it was possible to settle the matter otherwise. Unfortunately your Chairman and Mr. S. T. Williamson (The Chairman of the Shipowners Protection Asso- ciation) agreed to this request. This was an unfortunate mistake on their part as it gave the Hongkong Government time to prepare and put into effect an effective counter-move to frustrate and forestall the owners' claim. This took the shape of the Indemnity Ordinance, 1922."
Mr. Burkill said :-
"After agreeing to postpone the case instituted against the Government because the Shipping Controller was going on leave and because we were given to understand it would help materially an amicable settlement we found that the postponement was merely used to enable an Indemnity Act to be framed and passed which put us out of Court".
Mr. Moller subsequently, in view of comments in the Hongkong Press, wrote to the North China Daily News:-
"Mr. Fletcher has seen fit to remark to the Press that many of my statements
are untrue, to wit
That
(6 iny statement That the Colonial Secretary at Hongkong obtained a stay of legal proceedings, and later the