612
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
CO885/25
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
62
APPENDIX A.-REPORTS.
interests concerned, and advise him how far the vessels are permanently disposable by him in the manner suggested, and what action is necessary on the part of this Department to effect transfer to the owners of lost vessels, and suggest what financial transactions between the Department and the Committee or the Prize Fund should be carried out.
The Secretary,
Oversea Prize Disposal Committee.
4332
(3)
I am, &c.,
E. J. STROHMENGER.
NINTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE OVERSEA PRIZE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,
THE Committee appointed by Treasury minute of 11th November, 1914, and further empowered by Treasury minute, dated the 4th September, 1918, to consider and make recommendations as to the extent to which prize and detained enemy vessels (including vessels dealt with in the Prize Court in this country) can be utilized for the replacement of requisitioned vessels lost through war risk, and as to the action necessary to effect transfer to the owners of lost vessels, and to advise upon the financial and other arrangements incidental thereto, beg to submit the following supplementary report upon their last reference.
The Committee have dealt in their Eighth Interim Report with the case of the vessels condemned as prize, and now propose to deal with the question of the application of the scheme to enemy vessels at present sentenced to detention.
Before dealing with the means to be adopted for the application of the scheme to such vessels, the Committee feel it right to point out that the proposal raises an important question of policy. As yet no decision has been taken as to the final disposal of enemy vessels at present sentenced to detention under the Sixth Hague Convention; the Privy Council has declined for the present to say what the effect of the Convention is, or whether, in the events which have happened, it is to be regarded as applicable to the vessels in question; and, while it is generally agreed that the matter must be dealt with in the Treaty of Peace, His Majesty's Govern- ment have not yet decided, so far as the Committee are aware, what provisions on the subject they should endeavour to have inserted.
In the summer of 1917 correspondence passed between the Treasury, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Foreign Office, in which it was agreed that it was desirable to provide in the terms of peace for the permanent retention (without compensation) by His Majesty's Government of the enemy detained ships in their hands, while requiring the return of British detained ships in the hands of the enemy Powers, and it was proposed to submit this proposal to the War Cabinet for a decision. Just at the same time, however, a proposal had been laid before the War Cabinet for the adoption of the so-called "ton for ton policy" and the issue of a public declaration to that effect. The War Cabinet, however, on 25th July, 1917, decided that it was impossible to deal at the then stage of the War with one isolated question regarding the future terms of peace. In view of this decision it was thought useless to submit the proposal as to detained ships to the War Cabinet, though it was intended to do so if the "ton for ton policy should subsequently he resubmitted for decision.
If enemy ships at present sentenced to detention are utilized, as proposed, for the replacement of requisitioned vessels lost through war risk. it will in practice be impossible to adopt a policy which would involve their restoration to the enemy owners at the end of the War. It is true that it would be possible by legislation to recover such ships, if still afloat, from the private owners to whom they had been transferred, but apart from any other considerations it appears to the Committee unlikely that legislation for this purpose would be acceptable to Parliament. Moreover, any uncertainty of this sort as to the future would destroy one of the main objects which has, the Committee understand, led to the proposal. adoption, therefore, of the proposed scheme would exclude the possibility of the return of detained vessels on both sides to their original owners; and, although it
The
APPENDIX A.-REPORTS.
63
would presumably be possible to pay to the enemy owners the value of the ships instead of returning them, or to replace them by other vessels, the Committee feel that the proposed utilization of the detained ships would in fact make it necessary for His Majesty's Government to decline to put the Convention into force, or, alternatively, would commit His Majesty's Government to a particular interpreta- tion of their obligations under the Convention. To this extent the adoption of the scheme would deprive His Majesty's Government of full liberty of action. The adoption of the proposed scheme would, however, be consistent with the policy which, as explained above, was agreed upon between the Departments concerned in 1917, and the Committee only wish to point out that it could hardly be put into effect without involving a decision on a question which has so far been left open, and that a reference to the War Cabinet will presumably be necessary.
The Committee also think it right to point out that any decision as to the treatment of detained ships is closely connected with the “ ton for ton policy"; for if that policy is adopted the first enemy ships to which it would naturally be applied are the detained ships which are actually in the hands of His Majesty's Govern ment; the application of the scheme now under consideration to detained ships would, therefore, be quite consistent with the eventual adoption of the
ton for
ton policy," and would, in fact, be the first step towards it: while a decision that the enemy detained ships should ultimately be returned to their owners would almost necessarily involve the abandonment of that policy.
If the question of policy is decided in a way which makes it possible to proceed with the scheme, the Committee apprebend no practical difficulty in giving effect to it. The Committee have already indicated in their Seventh Interim Report that they consider that the Convention allows of the permanent requisition of detained vessels by the detaining State. If this view is correct no difficulty would arise in giving a good title under English law to a vessel which had been detained and permanently requisitioned, and all that need be done in each case will be to obtain from the Prize Court an Order for requisition under Order XXIX., Rule 2, of the Prize Court Rules. Orders for permanent requisition have already been secured in certain of the Oversea Courts, but, so far as the Committee are aware, no application for an Order for requisition under Order XXIX., Rule 2, has been made in the Prize Court in this country up to the present. The Committee have recommended, in their Seventh Interim Report, that Orders in this form should be applied for in all cases where not already secured. In the event of the vessels in question being permanently handed over to His Majesty's Government under the Treaty of Peace the existing orders for detention will presumably be converted into sentences of condemnation, thus relieving His Majesty's Government of any liability which may exist under the orders as they stand.
66
Of the vessels ordered to be detained by the Prize Court in this country, all those of any size which remain afloat are believed to be in the service of the Admiralty or Ministry of Shipping with but three exceptions. These exceptions are the sailing vessels "Elfrieda (now "Clevedon," 1,860 tons gross) and Terpsichore" (2,025 tons gross), which are employed in trade under the direction of the Committee, and the s.s. Diana" (1,208 tons gross), which has been chartered by the Committee to the Nigerian Government until the end of the War. The Committee recommend that the views of the Colonial Office should be ascertained in connexion with any proposal to withdraw the "Diana" from her present service, as it is understood that application has been made by the Nigerian Government to be allowed to acquire this vessel permanently.
As regards the vessels ordered to be detained by Oversea Prize Courts, the majority have been dealt with in the Prize Courts in the Commonwealth of Australia and India, and were taken over by the Governments of these territories. With regard to the Australian vessels, nineteen are believed to be still afloat, and of these one (the "Lothringen "-renamed "Moora"-5,002 tons gross) has been lent by the Commonwealth Government to the Indian Government, and is at present employed on British Expeditionary Force service, another (the Oberhausen renamed "Booral "-4,322 tons gross) has been brought within the Liner Requisi- tion Scheme, and the remaining seventeen are understood to be directly within the control of the Commonwealth Government. Ten of the Indian vessels remain afloat, and are under the control of the authorities in India or the India Office. The other oversea detained vessels of any size which remain afloat have been handed over either to the Admiralty or the Ministry of Shipping with but three exceptions.
64
APPENDIX A.-REPORTS,