PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
4
6T
Reference :-
C.O. 882
8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
12
On the case being brought before the Marine Magistrate's Court, he declined to 'con- vict on a charge of refusal of duty because no mention was made in the agreements of the men of the particular service required of them, which service might expose them to a certain risk. Mr. May endorsed the action of the Marine Magistrate after having obtained an opinion from the Attorney-General.
I have, &c.,
31662
No. 28.
M. NATHAN,
Governor, &c.
13
First, by sending the "Inkum " to sea with a Chinese crew this ship, whose value is £75,000, was seriously endangered. Our position in a Russian Prize Court would have been a very serious one had she been captured.
Secondly, the intimation to stop her clearance was an improper one.
Thirdly, by placing the European crew on board this ship so lately as Tuesday a serious breach of peace might have been caused, and finally, from His Excellency's telegram, we submit it is clear that it is not the statement of the " Inkum" shipowners that is incorrect, but that the information that has been placed at His Excellency's disposal could not have been fully in accordance with the facts.
These incidents are seriously detrimental to the interests of British shipping, and in view of the fact that we have our S.S. "Ikbal" and the S.S." Inkum " just arranged
to constantly trade between Hong Kong and South Africa with coolies, we are viewing such troubles as these, that should be unnecessary, with grave apprehension.
We have, &c.,
FOR J. H. WELSFORD & CO., LIMITED,
J. H. WELSFORD,
SIR,
J. H. WELSFORD & CO., LTD., to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received September 10, 1904.)
[Copy to Governor, September 14, 1904, No. 272. L.F.]
[Answered by No. 32.]
Gulf Transport Line, 17, Water Street, Liverpool,
September 9, 1904.
WE beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 8th.* We note with concern that the Governor of Hong Kong has telegraphed " state- ment of 'Inkum' shipowners incorrect."
In consequence it is our duty to inform you that when the arrangement was made with your office, we were so secure in our minds that this matter was at an end that we merely cabled the Captain on the 3rd that we had arranged with the Board of Trade, and in response to his cable asking what he had to pay at Hong Kong, we replied "to pay nothing there, but to leave the matter to be settled here."
On the 6th instant we received a cable containing the following:-" Authorities put crew aboard. Powerless prevent same, on account of ship declining pay ex- penses." We received a further cable yesterday, the 8th, stating:-"Crew landed. Authorities sending them home distressed seamen at ship's expense."
The above are the actual facts as we have them.
We would feel more at ease if the Department would cable Hong Kong that the expenses are not to be collected there, but be collected here in accordance with our arrangement.
In regard to the whole matter, we respectfully submit that it is one which requires serious investigation. We would point out that our ship was subject in the first in- stance to seven days' detention at Hong Kong in July last before she proceeded with a Chinese crew.
The arrangement made, and the advice given to the Captain, were not only wrong, but had no reference to the Merchant Shipping Act or the equity of the shipowner's interest.
When we brought this matter before the Board of Trade, the reply to their cable was such that, on its interpretation, the Board took the view that a trial had been held, and they could not interfere.
On receipt of the facts, and while we were negotiating with Sir Francis Hopwood and the Colonial Office, the Captain was informed that unless he took the crew back the ship's clearance would be refused. Our reply to the authories was that under no circumstances would we take the crew aboard our ship, and that we would provide whatever bail was necessary.
The arrangements made with your Department as we thought cleared the matter. Notwithstanding this, we find that in spite of the Captain's protests this crew was taken from the boarding house and placed aboard the "Inkum" so lately as the 6th. and that it was only in consequence of the cable which you sent again that they were taken ashore.
• No. 25.
31532
SIR,
(No. 271.)
No. 29.
Managing Director.
MR. LYTTELTON to GoVERNOR SIR M. NATHAN.
Downing Street, September 9, 1904.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 308, of the 3rd of August, and to transmit to you the enclosed copies of correspondencet with the Board of Trade and the owners of the S.S. Inkum."
To Governor, 27th July.
From Governor, 28th July. To Governor, 5th August. From Governor, 7th August. To Governor, 26th August. From Governor, 28th August. To Governor, 1st September. To Governor, 2nd September. From Governor, 3rd September. To Governor, 6th September. From Governor, 7th September.
31662
1. Board of Trade.
2. I will resent any comment on this matter until
I have received your full report on the circumstances of the case.
I have to confirm the telegraphic correspondence as noted in the margin.
have, &c.,
SCHEDULE OF ENCLOSURES.
September 1, 1904.
ALFRED LYTTELTON.
2. Messrs. Welsford & Co. Telegram. September 6, 1904.
3. Messrs. Welsford & Co.
4. Messrs. Welsford & Co.
September 6, 1904. September 7, 1904.
5. To Messrs. Welsford & Co. September 8, 1904.
6. Messrs. Welsford & Co.
September 8, 1904.
No. 30.
MR. LYTTELTON to GoVERNOR SIR M. NATHAN.
(Sent 3.15 p.m., September 10, 1904.)
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 36.]
Referring to your telegram of September 7,§ "Inkum." All expenses will be adjusted in this country. Full accounts should be sent together with report on all the circumstances of the case.
• No. 27. † Nos. 10, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 23. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 19. § No. 19.
14