?
Section 3 effects a verbal amendment in section 4 of Ordiname 36 of 1393, which has been already amended by section 3 of Ordina
81 of 1001, by striking out certain words and substituting others
confining the sub-section to ships only which exceed sixty tons.
colonial ship not exceeding sixty tons which leaves the wa
the Colony without being provided with the officers required by
Principal Ordinance commits & breach of section 4 (3) thereof, and,
as there is no special penalty provided, comes under the general
penal clause 41 (4) of the Principal Ordinance.
72
It is deemed inadvisable to compel a colonial ship not exceeding sil
tons, to have, when merely going from port to port, the complementi
officers required for ships over that tornage. Therefore section (1
of the Principal Ordinance has been amended by section 3 of this
-nance so as to bring colonial ships exceeding sixty tons within th
operation of section 4 (4) of the Frincipal Ordinance.
Section 4. The object of this amendment is to embrace the
-visions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts 1994 1999 relatin
to distressed seenen.
Section 8. This section defines more clearly the several
-bilities of the seaman and the Boarding House Keeper respectively)
ceses relating to the medical inspection of seamen before shipment.
Section 3. This merely supplies an omission in section ? 4
the Principal Ordinance. No power to impose hard labour was inserts
in that Ordinance. This amendment is now proposed in order to make
laws in that respect similar to the Imperial law.
The instruction in paragraph 7 0.0.0. 373/1002 is, as I understanli
to amend section 9 of the Principal Ordinance so that it shall, so
as it adopts the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1994, cor
-pond in all respects therewith.
→
Section 2 of the Principal Ordinance does in effect so correspond,
Section 9 (1) (a) Corresponds with a combination of secti
228,833, & 234 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
Section 9 (3) Is local. A similar provision has appeare!
Merchant 3hipping Ordinances prior to the Principal
-nance, and the provision was re-inserted in that Ordi-
-nance. Section 9 has been under the consideration of
the Solicitor to the Roard of Trade, and was amended to
its present shape by the Merchant Shipping Amendzent
Ordinance 1901 section 11, now under the consideration
350
of the Secretary of State, to accord with the views ex-
-pressed by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade in his
marginal note on the section as it appeared in Principal
Ordinance.
342
Section 9 (8) - Corresponds with section 228 of the Merchant
Shipping Act 1394 except that the money penalty is heav:
and imprisonment is added; a divergence which local expe-
-rience justifies.
Section (4)
This is local. But this also has appeared in
previous Merchant Shipping Ordinances. The section has
been considered by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade,
and was amended in accordance with his views by section
13 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1001 now before the
Secretary of State.
Section 9 (5) (a and b)- Corresponds with section 281 (a) and
(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894,
Section @ (5) (s,d,e,f,g,h) - Corresponds with section 225 (1)
(a,b,c,d,e,f) of the Imperial Act 1994.
225 (1) (g) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1334 is inappliq
-able to a Free Port and has therefore been omitted.
225 (2) of the Imperial Act of 1994 is embodied in secti
? of the Principal Ordinance by section 6 of the present
Ordinance.
Section 7. Amends section 10 of the Principal Ordinance so ast
make the definition of the expression " passenger steaner therein
accord with the definition in the Tuperial Merchant Shipping Acts.
"}
»
As regards "British ship the wording of the Merchant Shipping Act
1834 has been followed.
With respect to "foreign ships these have been brought under the
Page 360Page 361