17
:
:
362
he was not present when the assault was committed.
In the circumstances it is strange the Con-
sul and Captain should have made any difficulty about the
discharge. Comparing the statement annexed to the Consul's
letter of 25th. March,1898, with Breaner's evidence before
the Magistrate, the conclusion I draw is that pressure was
brought to bear on him and he had to eat "humble pie" to
get his discharge from the Consul and without a discharge.
he could not get fresh employ. Evidently, Brenner did not
know that mere absence from the ship does not constitute
desertion if there was "Sufficient reason",in the opinion
of the Magistrate, for his not returning to the ship (see
Sec.20 of Ord. 26 of 1891,s.s. (1) ). The man was destitute
and in a foreign port and seems to have met with little sym
pathy from his Consul who evidently symphatised with the
mate.
As, however, the Harbour Master and I are en-
gaged upon a new Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance,
consider it would be advisable to ask the Secretary of
State whether he desires any alteration to be made
in sec.
20 s.s. (1) of Ord. 26 of 1891 in view of the Consul's conten -
tion as to the effect of the Treaty of 1892.
I have no means of knowing the practice in
the United States in the case of deserters from British ves-
sels or that, in England, as to deserters from United States
Ships as regards the functions of Consular Officers. If the
Consul