of the 18th April, last to the granting of the Royal Assent to
562 Ordinance 33 of 1930.
As regards the following note by the Board of Trade on subsection (3) of section 3 of Ordinance 36 of 1899:-
"Is there any objection to inserting the provision as to forfeiture and penalty as contained in section 67 of The Imperial Act, retaining at the same time the provision that the registry shall become null and void?"
The Harbour Master states:-
The declaration referred to is with regard to the intention of the owner not to trade with the vessel to any other place than here. The declaration in section 87 of The Merchant Shipping Act is with regard to title or ownership. I think it would be sufficient to make the Registry null and void as it is only re-enacting the law in force here since 1855 in this particular.
With regard to the following marginal query by the Board of Trade on subsection (2) of section 4 of Ordinance 33 of 1899:- "Should not River Steamers be referred to definition clause 3(a) of this clause and clause 10(1)?"
The Harbour Master states:-
I do not think River Steamers need be specially referred to. If such a steamer was not a "British/Colonial ship exceeding 30 tons" she would be a Foreign Ship having a certificate. Under section 10 and in that case the officer's certificates must be in accordance with the law (a) ii and 10 - B (b) vi.
With regard to the following marginal query by the Board of Trade on subsection (3) of section 4 of Ordinance 36 of 1899:
"Leaving the waters. Why is the language altered from 'leaving any port in the Colony' in sub-clause 3 above?"
I may mention that the reason for the alteration is that it is desired not to put registered steam launches at a disadvantage.
Page 363
Page 363
Page 363
...
...
Page 363