Janúary 18, 1906.]
Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which serious adverse criticism has been passed by the Guild on the manner in which the Port Authorities of Hongkong bear themselves in their official relations towards the shipping community.
2. In view of the comments already made by the Government in connection with the Wing Chai case, it is unnecessary for the Committee of this Chamber to deal with that question as raised by the Merchant Shipping Guild.
3. The Guild has, however, brought further complaints against the Port Authorities and, in support of the grave charge made that "British Shipping and British Captains are unnecessarily harassed and interfered with by the Authorities at the Port," quotes instances where the Captains of two British vessels were fined for blowing their steam whistles at 4 o'clock in the morning in Hanghom Bay and
another case where a Merchant Captain was
prosecuted for anchoring in Junk Bay.
4. Your letter ander reply has dealt 80 fully with the above cases that but little remains to be said..
The conditions of the port of Hongkong are far removed from those of the average shipping port in the United Kingdom.
The steamer tonnage which enters and leaves these restricted waters is the largest of day port in the World.
In addition we have a number of steam launches engaged privately and as ferry boats, from one part of the harbour to another. There are nearly 300 launches registered in the port, of which over 100 are constantly employed as passenger boats.
The consequence is that the noise from steam whistles is almost continuous during the day, and often during the night hours.
It is imperative, therefore, that, while reason- able use of whistles by steam vessels is not interfered with, the abuse be reduced to a minimum. It is to meet this nuisance, which in a great measure is to be attributed to the small passenger boats, that the existing regula-
tions were framed.
|
|
CHÍNA. OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
It was in consequence of this necessity that Junk Bay was temporarily, so to speak," put out of bounds.”
On the 5th of June the Oscar II. anchored without permission in Junk Bay aud the commander was duly summoned. The Magistrate before whom the cases was tried appeared to consider the explanation given by the Master as reasonable, for it seems the latter was discharged with a caution. The Committee of the Chamber of Commerce represented the matter to the Government on the 10th July, and on the 21st July the Government notified in the weekly Gazette that veg-els would be allowed to anchor iu Junk Bay.
It would appear therefore, that after the matter had once been specially brought to the notice of the Government no time was lost in meeting the views of the shipping community. 6. While dealing in detail with the above questions the general purport of your letter under reply would appear to contain a request from His Excellency for an expression of opinion from this Chamber as to the manner in which Captain Barnes-Lawrence has carried out his daties vis-a-vis the shipping community of this port.
As you are doubtless aware the Committee of the Chamber is largely composed of representa tives of the various ship, ing interests to be found in Hongkong.
Speaking, therefore, from actual experience the Committee are in a position to assert that throughout his occupancy of the position of Harbour Master in this Colony, Captain Barnes- Lawrence has consistently displayed the greatest courtesy towards the shipping community.
As has already been pointed out, it has been found necessary in the interests of the com- munity at large to make certain regulations for the guidance of the Port Authorities in order to prevent nuisance or abuses.
Regula ious have had also from time to time to be framed to enable the Government to deal with the general trade of the port, and parti- cular reference might be made to those imposed under the terms of the Brassels Sugar Conven- tion, Dangerous Goods, &c.
It would appear from the facts of the cases (so far as they are understood by the Committee It is obvious that while regulations must of the Chamber) cited by the Merchant Ship-exist, their strict application on all and every ping Guild, the steam whistles were being Cocasion may at times harass trade with the blown, not in the ordinary course of navigation, result that, if such a policy were persisted in, but merely to attract the attention of people on permanent injury would result to the trade of shore.
the port.
It is precisely to meet like abuses that the regulations referred to were brought into force, and the case against the masters of vessels in question having been proved to the satisfaction of the Court, the Committee of the Chamber are glad to observe that in the interests of the community at large a fitting penalty was imposed by the Magistrate. The terms used by the Guild as "Captains of British Merchant Ships" though technically correct is calculated to convey to the uninitiated a somewhat erroneous impression. The vessels in question are small river steamers of some 80 to 90 tons registered in the Colony, and consequently rank as British vessels. They are, however, owned by Chinese firms and manned by the usual class of Chinese, seamen with the excep- tion of the commanders, who in this case are understood to be British,
The Committee would add that it is precisely this class of small passenger vessel whose improper use of the steam whistles has led to repeated complaints being made to the Govern- ment. Hence the regulations.
5. The case of the Norwegian steamers anchoring in Junk Bay has also been fully explained in the latter under reply.
For many years past merchant captains have made use of this anchorage in unsettled or foggy weather without hindrance from the Port Authorities.
During last Summer, however, particularly towards the end of May and early in June, the condition of affairs in the Far Eastern Seas was abnormal. It was unquestionably impera- tive that under these circumstances it was the duty of the Hongkong Government to do all that was possible to ensure that the neutrality of the port should not be infringed. Regula tions, therefore, had to be strictly enforced to prevent vessels while anchoring in the waters of the Colony from doing so in places where droper police control could not be exercised by the Harbour Authorities.
The Committee are, however, glad to be able to place on record their appreciation of the manner in which the present Harbour Master has shown himself ready to modify the regu lations when it has been demonstrated that this might reasonably be done, without detriment to the general good of the Colony.
The Committee of the Chamber regret that so serions a charge should have been brought against the Harbour Master, based apparently upon imperfect knowledge of facts, but they feel confident that the shipping community will unanimously endorse what they have said with regard to this official.
|
It may not be out of place to point out that cases now quoted by the Merchant Shipping Guild in support of their contention that the local Authorities do not render sufficient as-
sistance and encouragement to British ship ping oannot have any reference to the Harbour Master's office.
The Wing Chai case, with which we are not dealing, was, it is true, tried before Capt. Barnes-Lawrence, but those of the two steam launches and of the Oscar II. were taken to the Police Magistracy, a Court over which my Committee understand the Harbour Master has no jurisdiction.
It is proposed to publish this correspondence with the Chamber's Minutes in the usual manner, unless there is any objection on behalf of the Government to this being done. I have, etc..
(Sgd.) A. R. Lowe.
HON. T. SERCOMBE SMITH,
Colonial Secretary.
Secretary.
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, January 8.
IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE,
SAM HING v. 8.8, "PAUL BEAU.” The Sam Hing firm coal merchants of 28 and 30 Pottinger Street, sued the 8.8. Paul Beau to recover the sum of $5,390.60 due for coal supplied on the credit of the said steamship.
Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. C. D. Wilkinson (of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist), appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. M. J. D. Stephens, represented the defendants, May and July, 1904, the s.8. Paul Beau was The petition set forth that between
employed in continuous voyages Hongkong and Cantoo. During that period, at the request of Kwok Yick Ting, who was the Paul Beau, the plaintiffs supplied her with then the agent in Hongkong for the owners of
Some Chinese coiners have been discovered at Shanghai who, in a collar, had machines with which they were turning out five hundred twenty-cent pieces a day, all excellent imitations They all had long sentences of imprisonment.
between
bunker coal, for which there was an amount of
$5 390.60 owing.
The owners, the Compagnie Francaise de Navigation de Constructions Navales &o., in answer to the petition, said the Poul Beau was en- gaged on the Hongkong-Canton run by Messrs. Trevoux and Co., the charterers from the defen. dant, on the sole responsibility and at the sole risk of the said charterer; the captain, officers and crew of the ship at that period were the servants of Messrs. Trevoax and Co. and not of the defendants. The defendint denied that Kwok Yick ing was ever their agent, either in Hongkong or elsewhere, and they had no knowledge as to whether the plain iffs did, or did not, supply the Paul Beau with coal, Such coal, if supplied, was not supplied on the credit of the Puul Bes, but on the personal credit of Messrs. Trevoux and Co. Further, the defendants said that during the period of the alleged supply of coal they were, and still are, the registered owners of the Paul Beau, being registered as such not only in France, but also at the French Consulate in Canton, where Trevoux and Company were registered as charterers. The defendants denied owing the amount claimed, and also that their was liable to satisfy any claim of steamer the plaintiffs in respect of coal; and they did not admit that at any time the plaintiffs de- livered particulars of their alleged claim to Kwok Yick Ting.
The defendants' counterclaim set out that on or about November 17, 1904, they resumed possession of the Pun! Beau in consequence of Trevoux and Co. being in liquidation and in default with certain payments to be made by them under their agreement of charter. They had suffered damage through being deprived of the ship's services when she was arrested and through loss of interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per
annum from December 21 until judgment, upon the amount of bail, $7,000, which the defendants were compelled by the plaintiffs. to produce in order to secure the release of the ship.
In reply, the plaintiffs said that Messrs. Trevoux and Co. were agents for the owners at that time. They deuied all responsibility of the counter claim.
Mr. Slade said this was practically a test action. Auother steamer belonging to the same company was running under the same conditions as the Paul Beau. She was supplied with coal and arrested under precisely similar cir- cumstances and the parties had agreed to let action govern the liabilities in both. When the plaintiffs delivered coal, they supplied it to the captain and owners, and did not supply on the credit of Trevoux and Co. When they sent in their bill it was headed "To Captain and (`wners of Paul Beau.” By means of an admiralty action in rem a ship could be arrested, and its value made a source of repayment for goods supplied.
the decision ia (.ne
His Lordship-Irrespective of the charter ? Mr. Slade-Irrespective of the charter. Mr. Pollock-It is obvious, my Lord, that this question must be decided by French law.
Mr. Slade-French law is a question of fact, purely and simply.
i