CO885-(16-18) — Page 10

2

whether, in your opinion, there is any legal objection to the amendment of the Extra- dition Acts on the lines indicated in this letter, and to suggest any method of dealing with the first difficulty (a) which may, in your opinion, be preferable to that suggested in paragraph 2 of this letter.

I am, &c.,

HENRY LAMBERT.

59775

No. 195.

(GENERAL.)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

1.

Enclosures.

Law Officers' Opinion, 25th October, 1911.

2. African (South) No. 988.

3. To Governor-General, Union of South Africa, No. 482, 16th October, 1912 (18619).

4. From Governor-General, Union of South Africa, 22nd January, 1913 (4642).

5. To Governor-General, Union of South Africa, 26th April, 1913 (4642).

6.

(33975).

From Governor-General, Union of South Africa, 11th September, 1913

„J

7. Foreign Office to German Chargé d'Affaires, 14th October, 1913 (35817).

8. German Chargé d'Affaires to Foreign Office, 7th November, 1913 (39674).

59007.

i

REPORT.

1. We think that there is no legal objection to amending the Imperial Extra-

dition Acts in the ways indicated, and

2. No better method suggests itself for dealing with the difficulty which has

given rise to the first of the proposed amendments.

Law Officers' Department,

20th December, 1915.

FREDERICK SMITH. GEO. CAVE.

CASE SUBMITTED BY THE TREASURY SOLICITOR TO THE LAW OFFICERS.

[Right to Search Neutral_Ships-Sending into Port for Examination-Responsi- bility for Delay or Damage sustained by such Ships on their way into Port or after arrival.]

Herewith are sent :-

1. Copies of Official Minutes in the case of the Danish ship "Kentucky."

Copy of a letter on the owners' position.

2.

3. Copies of Notes made to assist the Procurator-General.

་

1. The papers sent herewith deal with the facts in the case of the Danish s.s. "Kentucky," which was on a voyage from Baltimore to Copenhagen and called at Kirkwall to report herself to the Naval authorities there. It being inconvenient to examine her cargo at Kirkwall, the Naval authorities ordered her to Leith, and a maval guard was sent aboard. On her way from Kirkwall to Leith she stranded, and part of her cargo had to be put ashore. It is the expense herein involved that is immediately in issue at present, the owners of the ship regarding the Admiralty as liable for all the consequences of the stranding. Apparently at the time of the casualty the naval officer on board was taking at least some part in the navigation. It is supposed that, although apparently the ship put into Kirkwall voluntarily, and possibly with a view to allowing the Naval authorities to examine her, yet the fact that she was ordered by those authorities to Leith materially distinguishes her position after such orders from that which she might have occupied while she was being examined in the port to which she had voluntarily resorted for examination, and that it is unnecessary for the present purpose to consider the latter question.

2. Besides the case of the s.s." Kentucky" other cases also are occurring in which the position of neutral vessels which are sent into port or from one port to another for the examination of their cargoes, or which, after so being sent, have actually arrived in port for such examination, has become a matter of considerable importance. In former wars ships were commonly stopped at sea and their cargoes examined there forthwith. If they were ordered into port at all it was in order that they might formally be condemned as prize, and questions arising from accidents or the like happening to the vessel on her way to, or when she had arrived in, port were decided according to the principles which govern the rights and liabilities of captors properly so called. At the present time it is not possible to examine a suspected cargo at sea. The ship's size is usually such that effective search under the old conditions would be impossible, and there are other considerations which put it out of the question to conduct such an investigation without ordering the ship into port. As a result, the common practice is to send a naval officer aboard the ship which is to be examined and to order her to proceed to some port where the examination can take place, the naval officer on board having to see to it that she is, in fact, steered for the port of examination, but not necessarily taking any other part in the control or navigation of the ship. In some cases the ship is simply ordered into port, no officer boarding her till calm water is reached, owing to the state of the sea. In others again, as in the case of the " Kentucky," the ship, having arrived in one port, is ordered to another where examination can more conveniently take place. The cases which have arisen as the result of this practice seem to fall roughly into two classes. In cases in the first class shipowners have claimed in respect of delay caused to their ship by her having been sent into port for examina- tion, and in those in the second class, as in the case of the " Kentucky," the ship while she was proceeding to port, or lying there, or even on her way out after examination, has suffered damage by reason of collision or stranding or other maritime casualty, and her owners have asked that the Admiralty should admit liability in respect of such damage and of its consequences. The question, therefore, which arises is this: What is the position of the Admiralty as towards the owners of the ship from the moment when, having been stopped by naval officers at sea, she is sent into port to be examined? Are the Admiralty liable for the delay so incurred: how far are they

(7993-2.) Wt. 20-1020 25. 5/16. D & S. G. 1.