Sir A. Moloney to
0.0)..
12 May 08,
Loto F.O., 7 May '98,
2
Saint Vincent asked the Governor of the Windward Islands whether he should exercise control of telegraphic correspondence with reference to movements of belligerent ships, as they were prohibited at Barbados, but that the Governor replied that he should not do so without special instructions. That he had since more fully explained his action in a despatch.
That as it seemed highly desirable that some general directions should be given to Colonial Governors to avoid such inconsistencies in procedure as this incident revealed, our further and fuller opinion was requested in a letter from the Under Secretary of the Foreign Office, and that upon our report then made, a Circular despatch was drafted, and after having been settle by us in conference with Mr. Bertram Cox, was sent out to all Colonies on the 17th ultimo
That Mr. Bertram Cox was directed to request us to take the papers into our consideration and to favour you with our opinion upon the following points:—
(1.) Whether the Governor was right in issuing an Order under the provisions of
the Barbados Act, No. 27, of 1890 ?
(2.) Assuming that the Act did not authorize him to issue the Order, had he any other power to prevent the sending of telegrams, and if so, under what law or authority?
:
(3.) Whether the Governor acted rightly in declining to allow the telegram of the
United States Consul to be sent ?
(4.) Whether the telegrams of the Spanish Consul, if tendered, should have been
refused transmission ?
(5.) What were the means by which the observance of the instructions relating
to neutrality in respect of telegrams was to be enforced, if violated by,-
(a.) A belligerent warship,
(b.) A Consul,
(c.) A private individual,
(d.) Generally.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. THAT we think that the Governor ought not to have issued an Order under the Barbados Act, No. 27, of 1890. The power conferred by that section should be used only when, in the opinion of the Governor, an emergency has arisen in which it is expedient for the public service that the Government should have control. Such an emergency would arise if circumstances had occurred demanding the paramount use of the cable for Government despatches under direct Government supervision, or if there was reason to believe that the cable might be used for the despatch of messages prejudicial to Her Majesty's Government or Dominions.
We are far from saying that an emergency such as is contemplated by the section might not arise by reason of the apprehended use of the cable by a belligerent for warlike purposes. Cases may be suppose in which such use might be prejudicial to this country as tending to embroil it with a friendly power, so that it would be expedient for the public service that control should be assumed. But we think it clear that in the present case no such emergency had arisen. The power is one to be used only in special and exceptional cases, and not to be brought into play merely because "a" belligerent cruiser has stopped at the port.
2. The Governor had no other power to control the cable.
He had power to make it a term of the admission of the Spanish vessel that the cable should not be used for warlike purposes, and could enforce the performance of this condition by preventing, if necessary, access to the telegraph office by the Captain or his subordinates.
3. We think that the telegram of the United States Consul ought to have been transmitted. It is only in a clear case of abuse of his privilege by the Consul of the Nation-one of whose cruisers is enjoying the hospitality of a British port-that interference might be justifiable on the ground that he was making himself the agent the Captain for the transmission of warlike messages.
of
4. Whether the telegrams of the Spanish Consul should have been transmitted we cannot say definitely without knowing their contents. Under ordinary circumstances & message to the Captain's family would be unobjectionable.
In answering the third and fourth of the above questions we have of course treated
• No. 169.
3
the Governor as in control of the cable. Apart from such control there would be no power to prevent the Consul from sending messages.
*
(5.) (4.) We have already answered this question. (See answer 2 above.) (b.) His exequatur may be revoked, and complaint may be made, to his
Government.
(c.) There is great difficulty in dealing with the case of private individuals unless it appears that, being British subjects, they contravene the Foreign Enlistment Act by taking service for this purpose with a foreign belligerent power. If the individual in question subject of the belligerent power, his withdrawal from British territory may be demanded.
is a
(d.) We have nothing to add except that it is difficult or impossible even if control were assumed of the telegraphs, to insure that messages relating to warlike operations shall not be transmitted; and that in our opinion the duties of neutrality do not involve any obligations beyond those indicated in our Report of 7th May 1898.*
RICHARD E. WEBSTER, ROBERT B. FINLAY.
We have, &c.,
Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
The Right Honourable
&c.
&c.
• No. 169.
תווורנ
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO