CO882-6 — Page 425

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ון

Reference :-

C.O. 882

6 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

| COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

21.

As regards sub-section (1) (c) of section 33 of 36 of 1899 the Board of Trade Minute is as follows:-

44

»

Why is reference to cables, &c., omitted from this sub-clause, it is referred to

in the paragraphs immediately preceding?"

In reply, the Harbour Master points out that it seems unnecessary to include cables in this sub-section. A cable might be injured, altered or removed, but it cannot be run foul of, nor can a ship ride by it without using the buoy connected with it, or make fast to it without picking it up, e.g., removing it.

As regards sub-section 25 of section 37 the Board of Trade Minute is as follows:-

Should the operation of this sub-clause govern His Majesty's ships? It has

4+

been held by the Court of Appeal in this country, see H.M.S.

..

Sans Pareil," Times Law Report, Vol. 16, page 390, that ships belonging

to Her Majesty are not subject to such regulations. Is it intended to include in this sub-clause Ships of War of Foreign Governments? See clause 45."

as

In order to obviate the above difficulty as to Foreign Ships of War the words ": well as all other steamships," which seem out of place in a part of the Ordinance relating to steamships not exceeding sixty tons, have been omitted, leaving other steam- ships to fall under the provisions of Regulation 6 in Table M.

As regards section 39 sub-section (1) the Board of Trade minute:--

"Is it intended that the term "Master "here shall include "Pilot?"

To that I beg leave to reply that the term "Pilot" appears to be inapplicable in the case of a junk.

As regards section 39 sub-section (9) the Board of Trade minutes:-

Before the word 'permit' should not the word 'special' be inserted?" To which I would reply that I think not; because "special" permit is a parti- cular one issued under sub-section 11.

There are a few points, which are mentioned in the Secretary of State's despatch of the 12th April, which I should like to refer to.

As regards paragraph 3 of that despatch the penalty in section 8 of Ordinance 36 of 1899 is reduced by the present measure. It is submitted that it is unnecessary to reduce the penalty of $1,000, which is enacted by sub-section 2 of section 41 of Ordinance 36 of 1899, inasmuch as the dollar being worth less than 2s., the penalty of $1,000 is even less than the penalty of £100 which is prescribed by section 680 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

As regards the objection which is taken in paragraph 8 of the despatch to the powers given by our local Ordinance to a Magistrate to decline to deal with an offend- ing seaman unless his Consul guarantees that he shall not become a charge on the Colony, the Harbour Master states:-

The desire to protect the Colony from expense in the case of seamen from foreign ships charged with breaches of discipline has been brought about by something more than indifference on the part of some Consuls. Masters desirous of getting rid of certain seamen will almost oblige them to commit themselves, the Consul applies to the Marine Magistrate, the offender is sent to gaol, the ship sails at once, and at the termination of this man's sentence, the Colony is saddled with him.”

As regards paragraph 13 of that despatch, it is submitted, with deference, that the provision in question, inasmuch as it relates to a question of procedure, would more appropriately form the subject of a separate Ordinance, and I beg leave to submit a short draft Bill herewith, dealing with the question.

N. E. POLLOCK,

Acting Attorney-General.

250

SIR,

1.

21

No. 9.

COLONIAL OFFICE to BOARD OF TRADE.

[Answered by No. 10.]

Downing Street, March 3, 1902. With reference to your letter of the 31st of August, 1900,* relating to the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping Act, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit for the consideration of the Board of Trade copy of a despatch which, after further correspondence with the Foreign Office, was addressed to the Governor of that Colony on this subject together with copy of an amending Ordinancef which has been No. 31 of passed in the Colony, but to which the Governor has not yet given his assent.

2. I am to request that the Reports on this Ordinance by the Acting Attorney- General of Hong Kong, which is enclosed herewith in original, may be returned to this Office.

3. With reference to Section 35 of this Ordinance, I am to state that Mr. Cham- berlain adheres to the opinion expressed in paragraph 3 of his despatch enclosed herein, and will inform the Governor that he cannot consent to the inclusion of provisions which conflict with the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act.

4. I am however to enquire whether the Board have any remarks to make on the other variations from their recommendations which occur in this amending Ordinance.

5. I am to add that the terms of the revised Quarantine Regulations embodied

in Section 39 of this Ordinance were settled after consultation with the Local Government Board.

6. For convenience of reference I am to enclose a copy of the principal Ordi- nance. Mr. Chamberlain will be glad if this copy can be returned with your reply to this letter.

28900

SIR,

No. 10.

I am, &c.,

H. BERTRAM COX.

BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received July 16, 1902.)

Marine Department, 7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W.,

July 14, 1902. In reply to your letter (No. 259/01/02) with enclosures of the 3rd March last! respecting the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping Amendment Ordinance, 1901, I am directed by the Board of Trade to forward to you, to be laid before Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, the accompanying copy of a Memorandum by the Solicitor to this Department dealing with the remarks of the Acting Attorney-General.

With reference to the first Section of this Memorandum I am to state that it appears to the Board to be undesirable that persons who are not qualified_under Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, should be empowered to own British ships.

The Report on the Ordinance by the Acting Attorney-General is returned herewith.

I have, &c.,

WALTER J. HOWELL.

1901,

• No. 3.

+ No. 7.

§ Enclosure 2 in No. 8.

The Ordinance, which is not reprinted, is enclosed in No 8. 【 Ordinance 36 of 1899 enclosed in No. 1: not reprinted. ¶ No. 9.