696
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
יוןוו זזוווווו!
MINUTES.
or recoverable subsequently from the proceeds of sale of any cargo detained, should be borne by His Majesty's Government and not by the Oversea Government. This would extend to any liability (including any sums awarded as damages) resulting from actions by shipowners and others claiming compensation for demurrage, etc.
(v) Port, harbour, and light dues. It was considered that dues incurred on ships brought in for examination and subsequently released without being proceeded against in the Prize Court should be treated as part of the expenses of examination (see preceding section).
Dues incurred on vessels delivered to the Marshal of a Prize Court would seem to be properly treated as expenses of maintenance, and as such will be covered by the Committee's recommendations under section (vi) or (vii), as the case may be. (vi) Expenses incurred by Oversea Governments in connexion with vessels or cargoes taken as prize and subsequently released by Order of the Court. Part II (i) of the Schedule to the Naval Prize Act, 1918, expressly provides for such expenses (other than legal expenses) to be a charge upon the Prize Fund in the case of ships and goods which are Droits of the Crown, or which if condemned would have been Droits of the Crown, except where, having regard to special circum- stances, the Tribunal may otherwise direct. The Committee decided to recommend that His Majesty's Government should refund to the Oversea Governments the legal and other expenses in the cases where the charges are not borne by the Prize Fund, whether such charges are in respect of Droits of the Crown or Droits of Admiralty.
(vii) Expenditure in connexion with the maintenance and employment of prize and detained ships or cargoes. It was thought that this matter might be conveniently subdivided into three parts:--
(a) Expenses of maintenance of vessels.—In the case of Droits of the Crown, expenses under this head up to the date of the delivery of the ship under requisition (where the ship had been requisi- tioned prior to condemnation), or up to the date of delivery of the ship to the Crown after condemnation, were made by the Naval Prize Act, 1918, charges upon the Naval Prize Fund, and the Committee were of opinion that His Majesty's Govern- ment should assume the corresponding liability in connexion with Droits of Admiralty. Expenses of maintenance after requisition or delivery to the Crown will fall within the recom- mendation in head (c) below.
With regard to enemy vessels sentenced to detention it would seem that the decision reached in the case of Droits of Admiralty will apply, on the assumption that none of the Since these detained ships are returned to the enemy owners. ships, or their value if they have been permanently requisi- tioned, are in the custody of the Prize Court, they cannot be finally dealt with except by Order of the Court. If any such ship is returned, the question of the expenses to be allowed to the Crown would therefore become a matter for the decision of the Prize Court unless expressly dealt with in the Treaty of Peace or by special arrangement, and the Committee think that the Crown should contend that the expenses under discus- sion properly fall to be borne by the party taking release. Among the expenses to be so claimed the Committee would include any expenses incurred in the insurance of a vessel whilst laid up in port and any sum expended in securing a valuation for the purpose of such insurance. In support of their view on the question of the proper claim to be made against an enemy owner for the custody of a vessel for the period to the date of requisition, it was decided to call attention to the following passage from the First Report of the Enemy Claims Committee :-
between His Majesty's Correspondence has passed Government and the French Government as to the proper inter- pretation of Article 2 of the 'Days of Grace' Convention in
MINUTES.
51
regard to the standard of care of a detained ship required of the Government which detains her, and it has been agreed between the two Governments that the Article imposes upon the detaining Government merely the duty of safe custody. The Government must protect the vessel from pillage, but it is not responsible for damage due to age and disuse, and if it incurs expense in maintaining a higher standard of care than required by this interpretation of the Convention or in the insurance of the vessel, the expense so incurred forms a proper claim at the end of the War against the Government whose flag the vessel flies, that Government being left to reimburse itself from the owner."
(b) Expenses of maintenance of cargoes.-As regards cargo condemned as prize, it was considered that the allocation of expenses should follow the same lines as laid down for ships condemned, as prize.
In the case of cargo sentenced to detention, either under the Blockade Orders in Council or as cargo claiming the benefit of the Sixth Hague Convention, inasmuch as the cargo, or the proceeds thereof or undertaking therefor if the cargo has been requisitioned, remained in the custody of the Prize Court, it followed that no release could be obtained without an Order by the Court. When the appropriate time arrives the Committee consider that the Crown might well ask for reimbursement of all expenses as a condition of release.
(c) Expenses in connexion with the employment of prize and detained ships. It was decided to recommend that expenses under this head should be charged to the authority controlling the ship at the material time.
8. Final disposal of ships condemned as prize. The Secretary was instructed
to invite Mr. Bunbury to be good enough to inquire into the stage which the Com- mittee's Eighth Inerim Report had reached.
4377
THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-EIGHTH MEETING of the Committee was held
in the Colonial Office on Thursday, the 21st November, 1918, at 11.30 a.m.
The following members were present :----
ADMIRAL SIR E. J. W. SLADE, K.C.I.E., K.C.VO. (Chairman).
MR. H. N. BUNBURY, C.B., Treasury.
MR. H. W. MALKIN, C.M.G., Foreign Office.
MR. L. D. WAKELY, India Office.
MR. C. TENNYSON, C.M.G., Colonial Office.
MR. T. H. HOLT, O.B.E., Crown Agents.
MR. G. A. JONES acted as Secretary.
MR. BUNBURY was present only for the first four items and part of item 5, whilst MR. TENNYSON was absent during the discussion
of the first three items. MR. J. E. DRAKE, of the Prize Branch
of the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy, and MR. T. J. WILSON, of the Foreign Office, attended the discus- sion of the first part of item 5.
1. The minutes of the One Hundred and Fifty-seventh Meeting were con- firmed, subject to slight alterations in paragraphs 4, 6, and 7 (iv).
2. Schooners "Leonor” and “Oregon."--Letters from His Majesty's Procurator- General and the Hudson's Bay Company were laid before the Committee. The letter from His Majesty's Procurator-General intimated that the application for the requisition of the Leonor was renewed on the 18th instant and adjourned for further evidence, whilst in the case of the "Oregon" it had not been considered practicable to make an application for requisition. The letter from the Hudson's
"
Reference :-
T
CO.885/25
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO