R
14100.
No. 35.
(HoNG KONG.)
4
#
SIR.
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
May 4, 1900. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Lucas's letter of the 5th October, 1899, stating that he was directed by you to request our consideration of a question which had arisen with reference to the detention of a vessel chartered by the United States Government, by the Harbour authorities of Hong Kong.
That it appeared from a note from the United States Ambassador (a copy of which was chartered by the United was transmitted to us) that the British steamship "Tartar States Government and used as a military transport for the conveyance of troops to and from the United States and the Phillippine Islands, and that while on her homeward voyage she was detained at Hong Kong for non-compliance with the local port regulations.
That in answer to telegraphie enquiries made by the Colonial Office, the Governor of Hong Kong replied that the British ship “Tartar" carrying United States troops had entered the Port of Hong Kong on September 6th, and that complaint had been made to the Harbour Master by some persons on board of overcrowding. That on the application for clearance of the vessel on the 13th September, it appeared that the certificate of the "Tartar" showed that she was licensed to carry 741 passengers whereas the declaration of the master showed that she had on board 1,140. That thereupon the Harbour Master declined to grant a clearance until sufficient apparatus for preservation of life had been supplied. That this was done, and the vessel cleared on the afternoon of the 14th September.
That in refusing a clearance under the circumstances, the Harbour Master acted in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 26 of 1891 of Hong Kong, and the Attorney- General of the Colony had advised that having regard to the provisions of section 4 (5) and section 6 (1) of that Ordinance such action was correct.
That it appeared, however, to you that it was open to question whether the "Tartar" being employed, though temporarily, as a transport in the service of the United States Government should not have been considered a public ship, and as 'such not bound to comply with the provisions of the local law.
That Mr. Lucas was to request us to take these matters into our consideration and to advise :-
1. Whether the Tartar" was a public ship.
2. Whether the "Tartar" was bound to comply with the provisions of the local
law of Hong Kong while in the waters of the Colony.
3. Whether the Harbour Master was justified in refusing to clear the “Tartar' under the circumstances set forth.
4. Generally.
J
In obedience to your commands we have taken the matter into our consideration · and have the honour to
Report-
1. That the facts are not stated in sufficient detail for us to arrive at a conclusion on this point. But it is usual to accept the assurance of a Government that a vessel is a public vessel of that Government, and we think this assurance ought to be accepted in such a case as this. The Tartar" would be an American public vessel if under the control of officers commissioned by the United States Governnient, and the assertion of the Government on the point should for such a purpose as this be treated as conclusive.
2. If the Tartar should have been treated as a public vessel of the United States--as we think she should-she was not bound to comply with the local law on a matter of this kind affecting merely the internal economy of the vessel.
5329-25-5/1900 Wt 824 S
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O. 885
Reference :-
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Q
3. We think she should have been cleared, if any representative of the United States Government asserted her to be a public vessel.
4. We have nothing to nd‹l.
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., &c.,
&c.,
&c.