16035.
No. 42.
(CYPRUS.)
MY LORD,
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, September 18, 1893. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Fairfield's letter of the 31st July stating (1) that he was directed to request our consideration of the despatch and enclosures from the High Commissioner of Cyprus respecting a claim of compensation preferred by the Italian Consul at Larnaca on behalf of the masters of three Italian vessels who assert that they were improperly subjected to quarantine in Cyprus in the month of October 1892.
(2.) That it would be seen that the Cyprus Government was obliged for its own protection, to regulate its action in quarantine matters by the measures taken by the International Sanitary Board at Constantinople, and that following the courses adopted by that Board the Government had imposed quarantine on arrivals from Italy, and that the Consul did not appear to have raised any objection to that step.
(3.) But that the Consul asserts that under the terms of the quarantine regulations the vessels were not liable to undergo quarantine, on the ground that they possessed clean bills of health issued by the proper Italian authorities and certified by the British Consular Officers.
That copies of the bills had not been transmitted, but the fact appeared from other letters in the correspondence with which it was unnecessary to trouble us. Government on the other hand maintain that Italy having been scheduled as an infected That the country vessels could not obtain clean bills of health from that country within the meaning of the regulations.
(4.) That it appeared that on the 9th September 1892 quarantine regulations were issued: subjecting (Clause 3) to five days quarantine at Larnaca all vessels arriving from Italy "unless they have undergone quarantine at an intermediate port, and are provide with a clean bill of health." That by amended regulations, dated 1st of October 1892, the words referring to quarantine at an intermediate port were omitted from Clause 3, and it was upon the clause as thus altered that the dispute had arisen. That the sixth clause stated that nothing in the foregoing regulations should prevent the Chief Superintendent of Quarantine and to pratique, and that the letters to the Italian Consul claim that under that clause also
from refusing to admit
any vessel the vessels might have been kept in quarantine.
(5.) That the Queen's Advocate said that the Chief Superintendent had no power to prevent vessels being admitted to pratique, but that he did not refer to, and might have overlooked, the 16th section of the Quarantine Ordinance of 1879 which empowers the Health Officer in certain cases to refuse pratique, and that it was possible that the sixth clause might have reference to this power. But that it was not clear that the circumstances of the case brought the three vessels within that section.
(6.) That Mr. Fairfield was also to refer us to the concluding sentence of the Queen's Advocate's Memorandum, in which he gives the text of a passage in the Ottoman Code (which is law in Cyprus) defining a foul bill of health as one which is carried by a vessel coming from an infected country (pays compromis); a passage which seemed to support the contention of the Government.
(7.) That
your Lordship would be obliged by our advising you whether the Cyprus Government was justified in subjecting to quarantine the three vessels in question.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the papers into our con- sideration and have the honour to
Report-
That, assuming that Italy was scheduled as an infected country on the 9th October 1892, we are of opinion that the sanitary authorities were justified in placing the three Italian vessels in quarantine. We think it doubtful whether on the true construction of the Cyprus Quarantine Regulations the vessels in question can be said to have had clean bills of health. But the first Article of the second division of the Quarantine Regulations of October 30, 1891, seems to constitute a sufficient justification for the action of the authorities.
0 74779.-27. 25.-9/93.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PETELEC.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO