until sufficient apparatus for preservation of life had been supplied. This was done & the vessel cleared on the afternoon of the 14th September.
In refusing a clearance under the circumstances above mentioned, the Harlow Master acted in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 26 of 1891 of Hong Kong (a copy of which is enclosed) & the Attorney General of the Colony has advised that having regard to the provisions of Section 4(5), and 6(1) of that Ordinance, such action was correct.
It appears, however, to Mr Chamberlain that it is open to question whether the "Tartar" being employed, though temporarily, as a transport in the service of the United States Government should have been considered a public ship and thus bound to comply with the provisions of the local law.
I am to request you to take these matters into your consideration and advise Mr Chamberlain:
1. Whether the "Tartar" was a public ship?
2. Whether the "Tartar" was bound to comply with the provisions of the local law of Hong Kong while in the waters of the Colony.
3. Whether the Harlow Master was justified in...