މ
198
whose immunity had come to be attributed to the fact that
it was well known that proper precautions were always taken
on board vessels of the Douglas line.
4.
The case of the "Haiohing" however shows that the
proper organisation of measures of internal defence cannot
in itself be regarded as a guarantee against the occurrence
of piratical attacks. On the other hand it does without
doubt show. that if all ships were as well organised as the
"Hiching" there would be little chance of piratical attacks
succeeding.
5.
But the question which presents itself once more
forcibly to my mind is whether the officers of merchant
ships can reasonably be expected to combat pirates in this
way, and how far, when piracy is known to be constant danger
and not a mere potential risk, the onus of providing for
their own defence can fairly be placed upon the shipping
companies. It seems to me unsuitable that it should be so.
I have already discussed this point in my despatch Number
1055 of July 20th last but the "Haiching" incident impels
me to revert to it.
6.
in
In the above-mentioned despatch I put forward the
view that the shipping companies, in supposing that all
the responsibility lies with His Majesty's Armod Oroes,
were just as much in error as the Chiefs of Staff,
assuming that the defence of merchant shipping is primarily
a matter which concerns the shipping companies who should
enguge and equip their cmployees with that specific end
in view. This standpoint I still maintain.
But the
question is one which seems more capable of satisfactory
solution if the argument is conducted not on the basis of
rights but of expediency and common sense. Obviously
shipping companies cannot expect to have the full and
unconditional