2
Opinion-
The answers to the questions depend upon the point whether the diversion of the neutral vessel to a convenient port for the exercise of the right of visit and search is within the ambit of that right. While the British Government continues to assert the affirmative (and under modern conditions there is much to be said for their view) it is important not even indirectly to reflect upon the legality of the proceeding.
We think that in practice the questions should be answered in the following Way:-
1. The exercise of the right of visit and search gives no claim to compensation in the absence of negligence or improper conduct on the part of the visiting vessel or its crew. The direction of the neutral vessel to a port convenient for the exercise
of the right is within the right; and in respect of a vessel so sent into port the British authorities would be responsible only for damage caused by unreasonable delay or by the negligence or misconduct of their own officers.
2. This question, therefore, does not arise.
3. Under such circumstances as those given the Admiralty or its officers are not responsible.
4. In the case of the s.s. "Kentucky" the delay was considerable, the vessel was ordered to a second port for search, and the officer in command of the visiting vessel had, on application, given some advice as to the navigation of the vessel. In these circumstances we think that the claim might be met as an act of grace. The matter should be explained in this sense.
Law Officers' Department,
23rd December, 1915.
FREDERICK GEO. CAVE,
SMITH.
ப
༄། ། ། །།
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19
C.O.885
Reference :-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
7