CO885-(13-15) — Page 347

19823.

| | | | | | | | | |

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O.

885

Draft of Despatch from the EARL OF ROSEBERY to COUNT TORNIELLI.

M. L'AMBASSADEUR,

Foreign Office,

IT

•

1893. I HAVE the honour to acquaint your Excellency that the claims preferred in your note of the 22nd March last for compensation for the three vessels, Girolamo,” Falco," and "Italiano," or the alleged ground of their having been improperly subjected to quarantine in Cyprus, have been carefully considered by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in communication with the High Commissioner in Cyprus and the Law Officers of the Crown.

The case may be briefly stated as follows.

The Government of Cyprus is obliged, for its own protection, to regulate its action in quarantine matters on the lines adopted by the Board of Health at Constantinople, and, following their lead, it was found necessary to impose quarantine on arrivals from the Italian Littoral in September last year.

The notice putting this requirement into effect was dated the 9th September, 1892, Clause 3 of that Notice enacted that—

[1

Vessels arriving from Italian Mediterranean ports shall, unless they have undergone quarantine at an intermediate port, and are provided with a clean bill of health, be subjected to a quarantine of five clear days, to be undergone at Larnaca.”

A subsequent Notice, to practically the same effect, was issued on the 1st October, 1892, though on that occasion the words, "they have undergone quarantine at an intermediate, port," were omitted, but a fresh clause, No. 6, was inserted, to the following effect:-

Nothing in the foregoing Regulations shall be held to prevent the Chief Superin- tendent of Quarantine, should he think it advisable, from refusing to admit

any vessel to pratique."

The three vessels in respect of which compensation is sought, according to your Excellency's note of the 22nd March last, arrived in Cyprus subsequently to the pro- mulgation of this Notice, viz., on the 5th, 7th, and 14th of October.

It is considered that the practical effect of the Notice dated the 9th September was to schedule Italy and other countries specified as "infected;" and the Ottoman Code, which is the Law in Cyprus, defines a foul bill of health as one which is carried by a vessel coming from an infected country.

That being the effect of the Notice, the bills of health born by the vessels alluded to in your Excellency's note could not properly be regarded as "clean," whatever might be stated on the face of them. It is a common practice in Spain and elsewhere to declare a particular port" infected," and, when this is done, all other considerations are ipso facto over-ridden, and the bills of health cease to have any value in themselves.

But apart from this view, Her Majesty's Government would draw attention to the fact that by the General Quarantine Regulations, published in the “Cyprus Gazette" of the 30th October 1891, the Health Officer, upon the arrival of any vessel, is required to ascertain whether she has called al or communicated with a country scheduled as infected, and, if she has done so, to direct her to proceed to the quarantine ground, there to undergo such quarantine as may have been directed to be imposed upon such vessel the notice-of-the-tst October-1899, already vited, after-giving eermin-partienlur-directions-concludos-by-sating that nothing he think it advisible-from-refusing-to-admit-any-vessel-to-pratique." This provision gave a general power to the Sanitary Authority, the exercise of which cannot be complained of. The Health Officer is also required by the Cyprus Quarantine Ordinance of 1879 to refuse to admit a vessel to pratique if he believes that danger to the public health may reasonably be apprehended by admitting it.

in-these-directions“shall-be-held-to-prevent-the-Chief-Superintendent-of-Quamatine,-should

Your Excellency will therefore see that, apart from any questions of the construction of the particular Notices issued last year, the Cyprus Government officials possessed, and were bound to exercise, their discretion as to acting upon general powers of refusing pratique. This might have been made clearer in the explanations given to the representations of the Italian Consul at Larnaca, whose observations referred only to the two Notices.

Her Majesty's Government are unable, therefore, to admit that the Government of Cyprus is liable for damages in the matter.

I have, &c.

(Initialled)

C. R.

MY LORD,

No. 48.

(STRAITS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Law Officers' Department,

Royal Courts of Justice,

November 23, 1893.

WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 2nd instant, stating that the late Governor of the Straits Settlements, in

a Despatch a copy of which was enclosed, had suggested that a reciprocal arrange- No. 263, ment should be come to between the Colonial Government and the Government of 19 Aug. '93. Netherlands India for the arrest and surrender of military and naval deserters within the respective territories of the two Colonies, pointing out that such an arrangement would be beneficial to both parties, and that the Dutch Authorities would assent to it.

That your Lordship was advised, on reference to the Foreign Office, that the Foreign Deserters Act of 1852, which is in force throughout Her Majesty's Dominions, was confined in its operation to the surrender of deserters from merchant vessels; and that although the question of extending its provisions to deserters from ships of war had been more than once under consideration, there had been difficulties in the way of taking any definite action in that direction.

That in these circumstances your Lordship would be glad of our opinion as to whether or not any such arrangement as that now proposed could be made without fresh legis- lation.

We have considered the matter, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands have the honour to

Report-

That in our opinion no reciprocal arrangement for the arrest and surrender of military and naval deserters can be entered into on behalf of Her Majesty without further legislation. Neither the Foreign Deserters Act, 1852, nor the Extradition Act of 1870 applies to the case suggested, and statutory authority to enter into the proposed arrangement would be necessary.

The Most Hon. The Marquess of Ripon, K.G..

&c. &c. &c.

Colonial Office.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY,

J. R.

D 74772.-33,

25.-11/98.

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIL-