CO885-(15-16) — Page 273

21582

P

No. 188.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

885

and in Holland. That the Company would appear still to own some property in the Transvaal.

That in particular he was to call our attention to the last case mentioned above, amely, Messrs. Fleming's claim to the use of certain lands, and that in this con- nection he was to refer us to the despatch, with enclosures, dated 30th March, 1903, received by you from Lord Milner.

That it would be observed that Sir Richard Solomon, Attorney-General of the Transvaal, had expressed the opinion that, with respect to contracts made with the Netherlands Railway Company, to decline to recognize the contract would be to confiscate the rights of third parties,, and that the Central South African Railways were bound by contracts entered into by the Netherlands Railway Company relating to assets which came into the possession of the Central South African Railway unless it could be shown that such contracts were unlawful or fraudulent, or were entered into when the Netherlands Railway Company had knowledge that their property would be confiscated.

That he was to request us to take these matters into our consideration, and to report to you:—

1. Whether the Government of the Transvaal or the High Commissioner for South Africa is liable in respect of any, and if so of which, of the claims which have been put forward on behalf of the creditors of the Netherlands Railway Company?

2. Whether the Transvaal Government is bound to recognize the contract made with that Company by Messrs. Fleming?

3.

What answer should be made to these claimants in general, and to Messrs. Fleming in particular?

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

Report-

That the Government of the Transvaal or the High Commissioner of South Africa cannot be held legally liable for any of the claims 1 to 5 mentioned in para- graph 6 of Mr. Cox's letter. The Railway is not vested in the Government as suc- cessor of the Company, but by an act of expropriation which has been carried out by the Order in Council of the 15th September, 1902, and it is for the Government to settle what compensation should be made to the Netherlands Company upon so taking over the line, and it is for the Company to settle claims against it.

2. We think the claim made by Messrs. Fleming stands upon a different footing. If the Company had made a valid lease of the lands to Messrs. Fleming, we think the Government of the Transvaal could not; according to the recognised principles of Law, refuse to recognise the lease to Messrs. Fleming, as this would amount to a confiscation of private property without any adequate justification.

3. We think that Fleming's claim to the land should be admitted if there is no other objection to it. We think that all liability to the other creditors should be repudiated unless its adoption in particular cases can be made a term of the settle- ment with the Netherlands Company as to the amount to be paid to them.

We are, &c..

The Right Honourable

Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c., &c., &c.

R. B: FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

SIR,

(GENERAL.)

ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Status of certain auxiliary vessels employed in connection with the Fleet.]

Admiralty, June 12, 1903. I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that they have had under their consideration the question of the status of certain vessels owned by the Admiralty and employed on auxiliary services in connection with the Fleet which are not placed in Commission under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act or officered and manned from the Royal Navy.

To provide for the maintenance of discipline on board and to give them a definite position as British ships when outside British waters, the vessels in question, viz., the hospital ship "Maine," and the distilling ship "Aquaris," were registered under the Merchant Shipping Act as the property of the Admiralty. Doubt having arisen, however, whether the registration under this Act of vessels owned by a Public Department on behalf of the Crown could be legally upheld, and whether, if legally registered, the provisions of the Act would apply, enquiries were made of other Government Departments having ships of their own, and it was ascertained that no general practice prevailed, and that some Departments registered their vessels while others preferred not to do so.

In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the number of such auxiliary vessels required for the Fleet will increase, my Lords decided to obtain A case was prepared the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter. and they were asked to advise on the points enumerated on List A, enclosed; a copy of the opinion given by the Law Officers is attached, List B.

My Lords are not prepared to bring these auxiliary vessels under the Naval Discipline Act in the manner indicated in the first paragraph of Clause (4) of the opinion; and having regard to the views expressed by the Law Officers in Clauses (1), (2) and (4), they are in favour of adopting their alternative suggestion (in the second paragraph of the last-mentioned clause), and of obtaining an Act which will confer powers to frame rules and regulations governing the employment of, and the main- tenance of, discipline among civilian crews in all vessels employed in the service of the Admiralty, including Dockyard craft, Ordnance Store Department vessels, &c.

As, however, the Law Officers' opinion is general in its bearing, and applies to vessels owned by other Departments of Government as well as the Admiralty, my Lords, before definitely deciding upon taking steps to obtain legislation in this direction, desire to consult the other Departments concerned, with the view of ascertaining whether it is considered desirable that joint action should be taken to obtain power to establish regulations which shall be applicable to all Government ships other than men-of-war and Indian and Colonial vessels.

Similar letters have been addressed to the Postmaster-General, War Office, Board of Trade, Customs and Scottish Office, and their Lordships will be glad if the Secretary of State will be so good as to favour them with his views in this

Inatter.

I am to add that such rules, if framed, would probably follow the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act rather than the Indian Marine Act.

The Under-Secretary of State,

Colonial Office.

I am, &c.,

EVAN MACGREGOR.

A.

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

QUESTIONS PUT to Law Officers.

1. Whether the "Maine," the auxiliary ships, the yard craft, or any of them,

are, in law, capable of being registered in the names of the Lords Commissioners of

the Admiralty or of Sir Evan MacGregor?

25 Wt G64 6 03 D & S 6 11967