CO885-(13-15) — Page 69

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

गय

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

While the provision in the Act of 1861, section 10, for free transfer of goods between steam packets, provided the goods are not landed, goes some way to show the spirit and meaning of the Acts.

I have very little doubt that this is the right view of the general law as to goods merely imported into the waters of a territory and not landed.

I cannot help thinking, however, that the question at issue depends on the different ground not of the mere unlading of goods, but as to-

(a.) Whether goods coming to be consumed or used, or likely to be open to being consumed or used in the waters of a territory (otherwise than as regular ships' "stores") are to be considered as landed.

(b.) Whether if this is not the case as to goods consumed or used on the importing

ship, it becomes so if the goods are transferred to another ship.

(c.) How far any general law of this kind would apply to Her Majesty's ships.

In answering these questions as to the United Kingdom it is necessary to state first this point, viz. :—that it is difficult to get quite an analogy because there are not in the United Kingdom, as in the Islands, taxes on usable as opposed to consumable goods. Plate is the only usable article subject to taxation in the United Kingdom, and no notice is taken of that on commercial ships if it is not landed, in which case it pays duty, or retained for transhipment as cargo, when it is under bond.

Consumable goods on commercial ships are either cargo or ships' stores.

If cargo, they are transhipped under regulations preventing consumption. If stores, they are, as regards foreign-coming and foreign-going vessels, let to be consumed, under restrictions by allowance only, and subject to that they are sealed up or removed to the Queen's Warehouse to be used on future sailing.

While such goods retain the character of transhipment goods or stores no duty is charged on them.

With regard to Her Majesty's ships it is again not easy to find a parallel.

It is not an occurrence likely to happen that any of Her Majesty's ships would come to the waters of the United Kingdom with parcels of dutiable goods for other ships, and such as they would bring would, with the one exception of plate, be only consumable articles.

But the inquiries of the naval ports seem to show that with the exception of wine, which by section 121 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, is allowed somewhat freely to officers, and may under supervision be transhipped, dutiable articles while on board the importing ship are taken no note of, but they are not for other persons (and doubtfully for the importing officer if himself transferred) allowed to be transhipped to any other of Her Majesty's ships, whether on actual commission or not, without the formality of being landed first, and so (except as to wine) becoming liable to duty, and thence reshipped to the receiving vessel.

There may in this seem to be a little anomaly, for it may appear, in principle, very little different whether the goods, if dutiable, are consumed or used in the waters on one of Her Majesty's ships or in another.

But the principle would seem to be this, that the deck of a ship of Her Majesty arriving from a foreign voyage is, until it unships for whatever reason, treated (subject to supervision to prevent illegal unshipment) as being still the deck of a foreign-going ship, but that directly it unships for whatever purpose, the goods are regarded as and required to become landed goods.

While therefore, I think, the Attorney General of the Island has based his claim on rather an unreliable ground it must be admitted that to the extent to which a practical analogy can be found in these waters, it would to some extent in the main issue seem at first sight to justify his contention.

But then there comes in this consideration :-If the deck of any one of Her Majesty's ships is in these waters until it unships treated still as that of a foreign-going vessel, and as not unlading, and if, as would be the case, the ground of that distinction is that (apart from actual landing) it is only when such a vessel transfers to a ship of Her Majesty's "at home" that it is to be held to land, is not every deck of a ship in the same squadron in Colonial waters entitled to be considered as foreign still and not "at home" in those waters. In other words, as regards a squadron in foreign or Colonial waters, a squadron on active and foreign service, are not all the decks on that squadron entitled to be considered as one deck all on foreign service, and all part of one ship?

I must confess myself that I think they are, or at least that they should be. It is a question, however, rather of Imperial policy than of absolute law, and it is,

as I have said, not possible to give an exact analogy from Imperial practice.

3

But to sum up, I venture to think that the legal argument as put by the Attorney- General of Bermuda is not quite tenable, nor would it be in accordance with Imperial law; and that the practice in Imperial waters, while somewhat favouring his contention at first sight, does, if probed to the bottom, and carrying the analogy of what is allowed on board one of Her Majesty's ships arriving in the waters of the United Kingdom to a squadron of such ships in Colonial waters, seem to suggest that the practice hitherto existing in the island ought not to be altered.

CHARLES I. FOLLETT.

12th April 1888.

(Signed)