IT
|
6330
४ 391
།
!
have been formulated by the Guilds concerned.
13. Briefly the contentions of the Guilds were
that the Captain Superintendent of Police is not a suitable person to exercise supervision of the anti-piracy arrange-
mente,
which duty should be taken over by the Naval authorities; that the Indian guards which ships are required to carry are not amenable to the authority of the masters
of the ships and are useless for defence purposes; that the carrying of arms which may easily fall into the hands of the pirates is an added danger even if the desire to obtain them is not a direct incentive to piratical attacks; that the structural requirements prescribed by the Regulations are a hindrance to the working of the ships; that generally the chances of successfully resisting a surprise attack are so slight that if (as they are required to do by the regulations) the master and other certificated officer "resist to the uttermost", they are faced by almost certain death; and that in view of the absence of adequate provision for their dependents, it is unreasonable not to allow them to exercise their discretion as to the degree of
resistance which should be offered.
14. We understand that in every case in which a
piratical attack has been successful, it has been found that the Piracy Regulations have, in some essential respects been disregarded. We have also had cited to us instances
of attacks which have failed.
15.
In the light of these reports we are satisfied
that if the grilles required by the regulations are properly constructed and kept closed the guards properly
the
posted and disciplined, passengers restricted to their
t
proper quarters and the ships officers properly armed, there
ie