CO885-(15-16) — Page 200

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Hertslet-

386-91.

Government urged His Majesty's Government to press it on the attention of the Australian Colonies as a model for their legislation, and that the Commonwealth Act was passed in its present form largely owing to the representations which His Majesty's Government had accordingly made at various times to the Colonifl Governments.

That in that connection Mr. Bertram Cox was to invite our attention to the fact that, Vol II., PP though by Article I. of the Treaty of Commerce with the United States of 1815 a right to enter, remain and reside in the United States was given to British subjects, the existence of that provision had hot been regarded as inconsistent with the subsequent United States Statutes under which stringent restrictions were placed on immigration, e.g., the prohibi. tion of any immigrant under contract of service with a resident in the United States.

That you would be glad to be favoured with our opinion on the question whether it might not be held, on the above or on other grounds that might occur to us, that there was not necessarily a conflict between the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1894 and the Immi gration Restriction Act recently passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

In obedience to your commands, we have the honour to

Report-

That, upon consideration of the matters suggested in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter, we sce no reason to modify the opinion expressed in our Report of the 11th March last.

With reference to the suggestions made in paragraph 3 of Mr. Cox's letter, we do not think that Section I. of the Treaty of the 16th July, 1894, can have the limited construc- tion which is suggested. We would point out that there is nothing in the preamble, nor in the said Article, to limit the Treaty to mere purposes of commerce, and the fact that freedom of commerce is provided for by a separate stipulation in Article III., and that, by the Protocol, the Government of Queensland thought it necessary to reserve their right to legislate with reference to the immigration of labourers and artizans seems to negative any such limited construction.

With reference to paragraph 6 of Mr. Cox's letter, we would point out that the Convention of Commerce of 1815 with the United States both in its preamble and Article I. expressly relates to objects of commerce only.

The fact that the Japanese Government have approved of the form of Immigration Act adopted would seem to show, as we suggested in our Report, that the Immigration Act may be so administered as not to cause any sensible conflict with the Treaty, and may amount to a complete waiver of any objection to the Immigration Law, in which case no difficulty can possibly arise, but on this last point we have not the materials for expressing an opinion.

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&C.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

15014.

SIR,

No. 142.

(CYPRUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Position of Cypriot Shipping.]

Royal Courts of Justice, April 17, 1902. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. Bertrain Cox's letter of the 17th January, stating that he was directed by you to draw our attention to the present anomalous character or status of Cypriot Shipping, and that he was to request the favour of our report as to the legal means (if any) by which it might be possible to redress this anomaly without the concurrence of the Porte.

That this question was considered by our predecessors in office in 1879, shortly after the island was transferred to British administration, and that Mr. Bertram Cox was to forward, for convenience of reference, a copy of their report of the 21st of March. 1879,* in which they stated their opinion that (inter alia) an ordinance purporting to operate outside the island could not properly be passed in the nature of a Cypriot Merchant Shipping Act regulating the registration of Cypriot vessels, assigning them distinctive flag, or containing any provisions as to the transfer of ownership, discipline, and other matters; and further, that Cypriot ships remained Turkish ships, and that any change in reference to them which the British occupation and administration of Cyprus might make desirable should be made by the Porte.

↑

That with regard to the nationality of Cypriot shipping the above report of our predecessors in office in 1879 was affirmed and reiterated by their successors in 1881, and a copy of their report of the 8th January, 1881.† accompanied the papers.

That the more recent report of the 12th November, 1900,‡ upon the question of the surrender in Cyprus of deserters from foreign merchant vessels, with which we furnished you, did not appear to affect the general question as to Cypriot shipping, except in so far as it laid down that a law passed by the Legislature of Cypras could operate only within the confines of the island, a legal proposition which it was impossible to contest, and which it was not sought to call in question.

That it did not, however, appear to you to be improper to reconsider, after the lapse of nearly thirty years, the international position of Cypriot shipping, with a view to remove, if possible, the equivocal character which embarrassed it in time of peace, and endangered

it in time of war.

That since the report of the 21st of March, 1879,* of our predecessors in office, it had been accepted that Cypriot vessels could not be registered as British ships, but remained Turkish ships, and must carry the Turkish flag, and were in all respects, outside of Cypriot waters, subject to the control and entitled to the protection of the Porte.

That, as a matter of fact, however, a considerable proportion of Cypriot shipping was owned by Greeks and flew the Greek flag, and in view of the danger that the Porte might be unwilling or unable to control and protect such vessels or other Cypriot ships, Mr. Bertram Cox was directed by you to request us to consider what, upon the true construction of the Convention of the 4th of June, 1878, between Great Britain and Turkey, with its Annex and the Supplementary Convention between the same l'owers of the 11th of August, 1878, were the respective rights of the contracting parties with reference to Cypriot shipping, and in what respects (if any) we were prepared to modify the terms of the report of the 21st of March, 1879, of our predecessors in office.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to submit that the terms upon which Cyprus was held were substantially the same as those upon which Wei Hai Wei was held, as to which he was to invite our attention to the Law Officers' Report of 22nd February, 1899,§ and that under the Convention of the 4th of June, 1878, and its Annex, the island of Cyprus was handed over to Great Britain by the Porte to be occupied and administered, and that the lease of the sovereignty of the island included all the incidentals of sovereignty not expressly reserved by the Sultan, and consequently that the right to control and protect the foreign commerce and the shipping of the island was now vested in His Majesty.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was further to submit that this view was supported by the Supplementary Convention of the 14th of August, 1878, under which, for the term of the

No. 196A in Vol. III.

† No. 244 in Vol III.'

§ No. 207A in Vol.-V.

11634-25-4,1902 Wt. D&S

&

‡ No. 59.

i