39829
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.885
Reference :-
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
SIR,
No. 20.
(JAMAICA: GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Disposal of Wreck and Droits of Admiralty.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
November 8, 1905. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. C. P. Lucas's letter of the 5th August last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us the enclosed correspondence, and to request us to favour you with our report upon various questions which had arisen as to the disposal of wreck and droits of Admiralty in Jamaica and in the Colonies generally.
That it was suggested to the Board of Trade that the non-disallowance by the Crown of a Colonial enactment vesting wreck in the local Government might be held to be an implied grant of wreck within Section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
That in the memorandum which formed an enclosure to the letter from the Board of Trade of the 2nd June, the Solicitor to the Board replied that unless it was admitted that a Colonial Statute assented to by the Crown over-rode the provisions of an Imperial Statute such as the Merchant Shipping Act, "a dangerous proposition," the Jamaica Law of 1895 was as ultra vires as the Law of 1875 so far as the disposal of wreck was concerned.
That an earlier passage, however, of the Solicitor's Memorandum quoted three Colonial Laws (those of Gambia, British Honduras, and British New Guinea) which, undoubtedly, vested local wreck in the Colonial Government.
That if these Laws were not ultra vires it was difficult to see why Section 37 of Jamaica Law 14 of 1875 should have been considered ultra vires, and the passing of Law 1 of 1895 have been directed.
That the reason for that direction was, however, given in Lord Ripon's despatch of the 19th June, 1894, from which it appeared that His Lordship considered wreck to be a droit of Admiralty-a view contrary to that maintained in the Memorandum
of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade and consequently held Section 37 of Law 14 of 1875 to be repugnant to the Imperial Acts 1 and 2 Victoria, Cap. 2, and 15 and 16 Victoria, Cap. 39, and directed amendment accordingly.
That if, however, under Section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act the Crown could grant wreck to a Colonial Government, and that if this had, in law, been done in the case of the Gambia, British Honduras, and British New Guinea by the non- disallowance of enactments of those Colonies vesting the proceeds of wreck in the local Government, it was not apparent why a similar course should not be taken in Jamaica, the provisions of Section 37 of Law 14 of 1875 being restored and Law 1 of 1895 being repealed.
That since the Board of Trade's letter of the 2nd June a despatch had been received from the Governor of the Bahamas in which instructions were requested as to the disposal of droits of Admiralty in that Colony.
That by the Bahamas Act 40 George III., Cap. 2, Section 3, all Acts of Parlia- ment relative (inter alia) to the prerogatives of the Crown were declared to be în force in the Colony, but that there did not appear to be any local enactment directly dealing with droits of Admiralty in the Bahamas.
That Mr. Lucas was to request us to take the various documents and laws forwarded with, or referred to in, his letter into our consideration, and to report :-
(1) Whether non-disallowance by the Crown of an Ordinance giving wreck in the Colony to the local exchequer could be held to be a grant of wreck within Section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act?
(1a) Whether such an Ordinance was, or was not, ultra vires?
(2) What was the legal position of the Imperial and Colonial Governments respectively with regard to wreck and droits of Admiralty in (a) Jamaica (b) the Bahamas?
(3) Whether the Jamaica Law 1 of 1895 should be repealed, as suggested in Mr. Lucas's letter to us, and whether any and, if so, what legislation was desirable in the Bahamas?
25 Wt 261 206 D & S
Б 2015