j
had to keep them for the unexpired portion
770
about 4 months
of their agreement. This is what,
I assume,
happened in
the case of the two men who did decline to be paid off and
left the port in the "Inkula".
(4).
Is it the case, as Captain Barnes- -Lawrence states that crews paid off in Hongkong are in the habit of allowing part of their pay to be de- -posited with the Harbour Master as a guarantee for their maintenance while remaining in the Colony and that the refusal to adopt this course in the present case was unusual ?
The due provision for the subsis-
-tence and maintenance of which the Harbour Master has to
be satisfied under sub-section 5 (a), section 7 of "The
Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1899" before allowing dis-
-charge in the port is, as stated in the 2nd. paragraph of
my Despatch of the 27th. December, usually taken to be the
deposit of $60 for the subsistence and maintenance of each
man in the Sailors' Home it having been found by experience
that a deposit of this amount is nearly always sufficient
to provide for a seaman until an opportunity occurs to
send him to Europe.
Crews paid off in Hongkong are
therefore, except in special circumstances, given no option
in the matter of a part of their pay being deposited with
the Harbour Master as a guarantee for their maintenance
while remaining in the Colony and the permission given for
the
141