41949
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTIC.O.
.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
(4) What was the legal position of the Imperial and Colonial Governments respectively with regard to wreck and droits of Admiralty in the Colonies generally? We have taken the matters in question into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
(1) That in our opinion the non-disallowance by the Crown of an. Ordinance giving wreck in the Colony to the local exchequer cannot be held to be a grant of wreck within Section 523 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and we would point out, in addition, that it was not competent to the Crown under that Act to make any grant any. droits of Admiralty, or droits of the Crown, having regard to Section 2 of the Civil List Act, 1837.
of
(1a) Yes.
(2) Wreck and droits of Admiralty in Jamaica and in the Bahamas belong to the Crown, and by virtue of the Civil List Act during the present reign must be paid into the exchequer and made part of the Consolidated Fund.
(3) We see no reason why the Jamaica Law 1 of 1895 should be repealed, nor do we think that any legislation is desirable in the Bahamas as wreck is governed by the Imperial Statutes.
(4) The Imperial Government is entitled to wreck and droits of Admiralty in the Colonies unless in cases where an Order has been made under Section 8 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, by His Majesty in Council, in which case wreck and other droits condemned by a Court of Admiralty in a British Possession would form part of the revenues of that Possession.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable Alfred Lyttelton. M.P.,
J
&c..
&c..
&c..
{
No. 21.
(GENERAL: HONG KONG.)
FOREIGN OFFICE to LAW OFFICERS.
[Russo-Japanese war. Claims for capture, destruction, &c., of vessels during.] GENTLEMEN,
Foreign Office, August 31, 1905.
I HAVE the honour, by direction of the Marquess of Lansdowne, to transmit, for your consideration, the papers noted in the accompanying list, respecting claims pending against the Russian Government in respect of various British vessels captured, sunk, or otherwise destroyed by the public ships of Russia in the course of the war between that country and Japan.
The Russian Government appear to hold the view that in all these cases the parties interested, if they desire to obtain compensation for their losses, must initiate proceedings in the Russian Prize Courts in the manner provided in Article 88 of their Prize Law Regulations, of which a copy is inclosed (Paper A).
Lord Lansdowne, on the other hand, has been advised that where the claims have arisen from proceedings on the part of the Russian naval officers which are not justified by the ordinary rules of international law, and which constitute an unwarrantable interference with neutral shipping, or where the Prize Court which, under ordinary circumstances, would have jurisdiction over the case has been rendered unavailable, and the Russian Government decline to indicate another in its place, the claims should be dealt with diplomatically. In the former class of cases His Majesty's Government are, to a certain extent, pledged to the parties interested to support their claims irrespective of the decisions of the Russian Prize Courts.
Sir C. Hardinge, His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, has. however, now informed the Secretary of State that he sees little probability that the attempts to get the claims settled through the diplomatic channel will be successful. and has urged that the ordinary rule should be observed in these cases, and that the parties should be informed that they must endeavour to secure compensation for themselves through the Prize Court and exhaust their legal remedies before the claims are made the subject of further diplomatic negotiation. He has also pointed out that other Governments seem to be following this course, and that His Majesty's Government stand alone in their attempt to secure a direct settlement of the claims.
Allanton " and the The papers in connection with two of the cases, the 'Oldhamia," were recently, by Lord Lansdowne's directions, submitted unofficially to the Solicitor-General as it was thought that immediate instructions must be sent to St. Petersburgh. As it has been found possible to suspend all action in connection with the claims, Lord Lansdowne now feels that it is desirable that the papers in connection with all the claims should be submitted to you, and that he should ask to be furnished with your opinion on the general principles involved.
It will be convenient, in the first place, to state briefly the present position of the various cases now pending in regard to which Lord Lansdowne is anxious to be. favoured with your views.
The "Allanton."
K
LC
This vessel, which is the property of Mr. W. R. Rea, of Belfast, was seized in June, 1904, on her voyage from Muroran, in Hokkaido (North Japan), with a cargo of bunker coal for Singapore. The steamer was taken to Vladivostock, where. according to the master, an effort was made to purchase her. The Russian autho- rities also discharged a portion of the coal cargo before the decision of the Prize Court. Sir C. Hardinge, on making representations to the Russian Government, was informed that this was done in order to ascertain whether the "Allanton contained any other cargo. The ship and cargo were condemned by the Vladi- vostock Prize Court on the 28th June, 1904.
31
An Appeal was brought against this decision, and was heard in October last at St. Petersburgh.
The Supreme Prize Court decided as follows on the 22nd October :-
1. To recognize the steamer" Allanton "and her cargo as not subject to confisca-
tion, and to return the steamer and the cargo to their owners;
2. To recognize that the steamer "Allanton" and her cargo had been detained
on sufficient grounds and with the observance of established rules; and
25 Wt 2645 1205 D&S 5 23711