CO885-(13-15) — Page 535

2

noted his protest that the Court had no jurisdiction over acts committed by him whilst on board a public vessel of the United States Navy.

That subsequently, on the advice of the Attorney General for the Colony, who had advised the proceedings, but who afterwards felt a doubt whether process of a local Court could be enforced on board the "Enterprise," the Magistrates were instructed by the Officer Administering the Government not to enforce their sentence, and that the matter was then (after some correspondence between Commander Eaton and the Government) allowed to drop.

That although the fact seemed to be regarded by the Attorney General of Bermuda as to some extent open to doubt, you had go ground for discrediting the statement of Commander Eaton to the effect that the "Enterprise" was a Government ship (as she undoubtedly appeared to be to the pilot). That, on the contrary, she appeared undoubtedly to have been an armed vessel employed as a training ship, named in the official Navy List of the United States, and commanded by officers of the United States Navy. That it was therefore assumed that no question of fact could arise as to her right to be treated as a public vessel belonging to a Foreign Power.

That Mr. Lucas was, therefore, to ask us to take the papers into our consideration and to favour you with our opinion whether,, upon the assumption that she was in fact a public ship, the " Enterprise" and her officers could rightfully claim to be exempted from the Colonial Laws relating to Quarantine, and from the jurisdiction of the local Courts; and, if so, whether any and what means could be employed to ensure the observance by public vessel belonging to Foreign States of the ordinary and reasonable sanitary regulations necessary for the preservation of health in the ports of Her Majesty's Colonial possessions.

That you would also be glad to receive any general observations which we might think fit to offer upon the question, which was regarded as one of considerable importance.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

That even upon the assumption that she was a public ship, the " Enterprise" and her officers could not rightfully claim to be exempted from the Colonial Laws relating to Quarantine. Every man-of-war entering a Foreign port does so upon the terms of observing such regulations.

It does not, however, follow that the vessel and her officers are subject to the jurisdiction of the local Courts. There has been considerable difference of opinion as to the extent of the immunity enjoyed by men-of-war in a Foreign port; but in our opinion the officer commanding such man-of-war is not liable to proceedings in the local Courts, in respect of any act done by him in the management of the vessel.

The duty of observing the regulations of the port is one of international obligation, The vessel is admitted on the implied terms of observing such regulations. If they are broken she may be expelled-if such an extreme step be necessary for the safety of the port. Diplomatic representations may be made to the Government of the country to which the vessel belongs, and if anything like a right to disregard such regulations were asserted, the Foreign Government might be informed that its vessels could not be admitted.

In the present case the error seems to have been purely accidental, and partly due to a mistake on the part of the pilot, and we do not think that any further notice should be taken of the incident.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

}

Reference :—

C.O.

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

!