57
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
885/26
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
10
APPENDIX A.-REPORTS.
Port, harbour, and light dues.
11. It is considered that dues incurred on ships brought in for examination and released without being proceeded against in the Prize Court should be treated as part of the expenses of examination (see preceding paragraph). 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 recommenda- tions under paragraph 12 or 13, as the case may be.
Expenses incurred by Oversea Governments in connexion with vessels or cargoes taken as prize and subsequently released by Order of the Prize Court.
12. Part II (i) of the Schedule to the Naval Prize Act, 1918, expressly pro- vides for such expenses (other than legal expenses) to be a charge upon the Naval 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 circumstances, the Tribunal may otherwise direct. The Committee recom- mend that His Majesty's Government should refund to the Oversea Governments the legal and other expenses in the cases under discussion, whether such charges are in respect of Droits of the Crown or Droits of Admiralty, leaving it to His Majesty's Government to arrange any necessary adjustment with the Naval Prize Fund, when established.
Expenditure in connexion with the maintenance and employment of prize and detained ships or cargoes.
13. It is thought that this matter might be conveniently divided 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 requisitioned prior to condemnation), or up to the date of delivery of the ship to the Crown after condemnation, are made by the Naval Prize Act, 1918, charges upon the Naval Prize Fund, and the Committee consider that His Majesty's Government should assume the corresponding liability in connexion with Droits of Admiralty, as well as in respect of Droits of the Crown in any instances where the Naval Prize Fund is relieved of a charge by virtue of a ruling of the Tribunal. Expenses of main- tenance after requisition or delivery to the Crown will fall within the recommendation 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 detained ships are returned to the enemy owners. Since these ships, or their value if they have been requisitioned, 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.
(b) Expenses of maintenance of cargoes. As regards cargo condemned as prize, it is 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 sold or requisi tioned, remain in the custody of the Prize Court, it follows 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 is thought that expenses under this head should be charged to the authority controlling the ship at the material time.
APPENDIX A.--REPORTS.
11
Recovery of legal and other expenses in connexion with ships or goods sentenced to detention and ultimately released to claimants.
14. As has already been indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Com- mittee take the view that, unless expressly dealt with in the Treaty of Peace or by special arrangement, the question of the expenses to be allowed to the Crown in cases where ships or goods sentenced to detention are eventually released to claimants will be a matter for the decision of the Prize Court, but the Committee desire to comment further upon the question of the recovery of legal expenses in these cases.
The legal expenses to which the Committee refer are Court fees payable by the Crown, and the bills of costs of the Proper Officers of the Crown.
15. The requisitioning authority should presumably bear all legal expenses incurred in connexion with a requisition. With regard to the remaining legal expenses the Committee see no reason, apart from questions of policy, as to which they are not in a position to advise, why the charges should not be claimed from parties taking releases of seizures sentenced to detention under the Blockade Orders in Council, but a difficulty may be thought to arise in claiming recovery of such expenditure in regard to ships or goods claiming the benefit of the Sixth Hague Convention inasmuch as the Convention does not specifically require that Prize Court proceedings shall be taken. The Committee, however, assume that all enemy ships seized in British ports must be brought before a Prize Court, and in any case the point is one for the decision of the Prize Court in any instance where it is raised by a claimant. If maintenance expenditure in respect of ships or goods sentenced to detention and eventually released is dealt with differently from legal expenses, the question arises to which of these classes a sum charged under item 48 in Appendix B to the Prize Court Rules will be attributed. As a Court charge it might be argued that such expenditure would come within the heading legal expenses, but, on the other hand, it may be said that there would be occasion for expenditure on caretakers if the property had not been placed in the Prize Court, and the Committee incline to the view that the expenditure might fairly be classed as maintenance expenditure.
16. In connexion with the release of the proceeds of seizures sentenced to deten- tion, there is the question whether the Crown will claim interest upon moneys advanced to meet expenditure in connexion with the detention of the property. In instances where interest is paid out to a claimant, either as arising from the invest- ment of moneys in Court or directed to be paid by the Crown on the value of ships or goods requisitioned, it would seer. tnat the Crown might well claim an allowance for interest upon that part of its expenditure which the Court decides to be properly chargeable to the claimant.
Expenditure incurred by Oversea Gorernments in connexion with vessels sunk by captors.
17. Expenditure on this account will presumably be refunded by His Majesty's Government in all cases. These expenses will he for the most part legal expenses but the question whether any part of the expenditure can ultimately be charged to the Naval Prize Fund will be a matter for inquiry when the accounts are received.
Accounts.
18. It has been represented to the Committee that it is desirable that the arrangements for the examination and acceptance of the accounts in connexion with matters of prize, and for the prompt settlement of the resulting balances, should be decided upon at an early date. In this connexion the Committee are of opinion that it would be preferable that the oversea accounts, whether Prize Court accounts or accounts rendered by the local Governments, should be passed on to a central authority, who would be responsible for their dissection and for the alloca- tion of the various items to the appropriate quarter for acceptance or otherwise. The Committee are disposed to recommend that the Treasury should be the central authority for this purpose.
19. In connexion with the arrangements to be made for the settlement of advances by Oversea Governments on account of prize expenditure, the Committee apprehend that cases may arise in which it would be equitable to allow interest upon outstanding advances.