For
A
and lorohas as it would be impracticable.
As regards subsection 1 of section 14 the
Board of Trade minute is as follows: -
566
"It is presumed that the word "British” in sub-clause 1 refers like the word "Colonial” only
to ships registered in the Colony. If not
should there not be a saving for ships marked
in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act”.
To that the Harbour Master replies "British" applies only to
ships registered in the Colony.
Subsections (3) and (6) of section 14 are amended
by Section 19 of this Ordinance so as to render ships
marked in accordance with the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act
free from provisions under section 14 or 88 of 1882.
As regards subsection (2) of section 14 the
Board of Trade suggests that the words "a port of discharge after in" be inserted
The words "her return to" but, inasmuch as there is only one port of discharge in this Colony, namely, in Hongkong Harbour, and it is submitted that the proposed amendment is, under those circumstances, unnecessary.
As regards subsection (1) (o), of section
36 of 1929 the Board of Trade minute is as follows:-
"Why is reference to cables etc omitted from
this sub-clause it is referred to in
paragraphs immediately preceding?"
In reply the Harbour Master points out that it seems unnecessary to include "cables" in this subsection. A cable is injured, altered or removed, but it cannot be run foul nor can a ship ride by it without using the buoy connected with it or make fast to it without picking it up etc.
As regards subsection 25 of section 3/
Board of Trade minute is as follows:
"Should the operation of this sub-clause
cover ... ships. It has been held by the
Court of Appeal in this Country see ... Tax Parigi Times Law Report Vol. 18 page