CO885-(15-16) — Page 613

34462

SIR,

No. 146.

(UGANDA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Admiralty jurisdiction in the inland waters of the Protectorate.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

25th October, 1911. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. G. V. Fiddes's letter of the 18th November last, stating that, with reference to the report of the Law Officers dated the 3rd June, 1910, on the subject of Admiralty jurisdiction in the Uganda Protectorate, he was directed by you to transmit to us the accom- panying further papers relating to this question.

That Mr. Fiddes was to request that we would take the memorandum by Mr. Albert Gray into consideration and report whether, having regard to the arguments adduced in the memorandum, we saw any reason to modify the opinion expressed in the above-mentioned report, and further, that we would advise you as to the course to be pursued with regard to the exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction, or a jurisdiction analogous thereto, in the inland waters of the Uganda Protectorate.

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

Report-

That there can be no doubt what is the jurisdiction with which Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 16 of the Order in Council, 1902 profess to deal for the reference to inland waters in Clause 1 and the fact that Uganda has no seaboard make it plain that what these clauses purport to confer is a jurisdiction in respect of shipping on Lake Victoria similar to that which our Admiralty Court would unquestionably exercise if Lake Victoria was part of the high seas.

The question, therefore, comes to be, not what is the jurisdiction which the Order in Council professes to confer, but whether the Order in Council effectively confers this jurisdiction.

We have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced and precedents cited in Mr. Albert Gray's latest memorandum, and in view of these and other considerations have come to the conclusion that the Order in Council may be treated as effective to confer the jurisdiction with which it professes to deal.

2. We confirm the conclusion in the report of 3rd June, 1910 as to Clause; 3 and 4 of Article 16. Consequently, Admiralty jurisdiction should be conferred on Protectorate Courts direct, and not through an Ordinance of the Protectorate.

We have, &c.,

RUFUS D. ISAACS. JOHN SIMON.

The Right Honourable

Lewis V. Harcourt, M.P.,

&c..

&c.,

&c.

• No. 132.

(21760-2.) We, 96–481. 26, 1211. D&S,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO