CO885-24 — Page 291

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

24 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

252

APPENDIX D.-MISCELLANEOUS.

It was pointed out by the representatives of the Admiralty on the Conference that the Admiralty would only consent to requisition these vessels upon the condi- tion that they are indemnified against any claims which might be made on account of the proposed employment of these vessels by the owners or other interested parties.

On arrival at the port of destination the ship and enemy cargo (if any) will, of course, be at the disposal of His Majesty's Government.

The prize proceedings will continue in the Cape Prize Court and will deal with the money in Court in lieu of the ship and the enemy cargo not landed at Cape Town.

The particular case which has been dealt with by the Conference in this report has been considered in detail because special representations have been made in regard to it by the Government of Australia and by the various States of the Commonwealth, and also by merchants and others interested in these particular cargoes, but the Conference have had before them letters from Lloyds and from the Institute of London Underwriters, in which requests are made that considera- tion may be given to the general question whether authority could not be given to all Prize Courts to send prize vessels on to their original destination in all cases where discharge of cargo at the intermediate port would occasion unreasonable loss to British or neutral owners.

The Conference consider that the procedure above suggested, with such modifications as the circumstances of the particular cases might suggest, would probably be capable of general application.

A question has also been asked by Lloyds and the Institute of London Under- writers whether the cargo could be allowed to be transhipped and sent on in other vessels.

As regards this, there seems to be no difficulty under the existing prize rules in obtaining a release of the cargo, either absolutely or on bail.

On such release being obtained, the disposal of the cargo will, of course, rest with the owners.

It is possible that cases might arise in which ships liable to confiscation might be purchased by the cargo owners, the appraised value being paid by them into Court, if they considered it worth while. This would afford an easy solution of

ficulty.

the whol

The nference considered that it would be desirable to adopt the above suggestions rather than incur the delay which would be incidental to legislation.

JOHN P. MELLOR.

G. L. BARSTOW. A. H. DENNIS.

W. G. EVANS.

R. H. HEADLEY.

APPENDIX D.--MISCELLANEOUS.

253

The method proposed for making use of these ships is that they should be requisitioned by the Admiralty under Örder 29, rule 4 (a) or 4 (b), and should then be chartered to British shipowners on time charter. It will be also necessary for them to be given a British register as Government ships, under section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, and the Order in Council of 22nd March, 1911. It is conceived that this procedure is in harmony with the provisions of the Conven- tion No. VI., above referred to, and that no difficulty will arise in restoring the ship to the owner at the end of the war in lieu of paying him her value.

The question on which it is desired to obtain the opinion of the Attorney- General is whether it would be safe to allow ships which have been dealt with in this manner to enter a neutral port. It appears that there are two possible risks :— (1) An attempt right be made by the original owners to claim these ships as their property, by action in the local Courts.

(2) A neutral Government might conceivably claim to regard them as public ships and to submit them to such disabilities as, for instance, the twenty-four hours' rule.

As to (1) it is conceived that any Court would recognize the transfer of title which has been effected in the manner above described, but there may be some possi- bility of a vexatious delay being caused by proceedings in the Court of a neutral.

As to (2) it may be worth white to mention that in the case of the "Schneefels," a German ship which has been condemned, but which is being allowed to complete her voyage to the United States for sale and discharge her cargo there, His Majesty's Government have intimated semi-officially to the United States Government that they do not expect this ship to be treated as a public ship. In this case it was, however, arranged that the ship should be registered in the name of an individual. The Committee would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would indicate whether, in his opinion, either of the above risks is sufficiently serious to render it necessary that a stipulation should be made when chartering these vessels that they should only trade with ports in the British Empire or with allied countries. They would also be glad to know whether, in the opinion of the Attorney- General, there is any difference between the position of a ship which has been per- manently requisitioned under Order 29, rule 1 or 4 (a) and of one which has been temporarily requisitioned under Order 29, rule 4 (b); and, further, whether the position is affected if an undertaking in writing is given to the Court instead of the appraised value of the ship being paid into Court under Order 29, rule 4 (a), and in view of the position of the "Schneefels," which has been mentioned above, they would be grateful to be informed whether there is any difference in the position of a ship which has been registered under the Order in Council of 1911 as a Govern- ment ship, and that of one which has been registered in the name of an individual.

B.

0.

D.

E,

1.

G.

H. W. MALKIN.

97

MEMORANDUM AS TO

No. 2.

GARNHAM ROPER.

EDMOND J. W. SLADE. CHARLES B. L. TENNYSON

PROPOSED UTILIZATION OF DETAINED ENEMY SHIPS IN TRADE, WITH THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY- GENERAL ANNEXED.

THE Oversea Prize Disposal Committee, in view of the great scarcity of ton- nage, has recommended the utilization of the enemy ships which have been sentenced to detention during the war, in accordance with Articles 2 or 3 of the Hague Con- vention No. VI. The view of the effect of those articles which has so far been adopted is that, provided the ships are returned to their owners at the end of the war in reasonably good condition, the owners are not concerned with what is done with them during the war and bave no claim for any money which they may earn in the course of it. The Foreign Office have recently proposed that these ships should be insured and that ship keepers should be provided, it being hoped that the cost of these measures can be recovered from the enemy Government as part of the terms of peace.

OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY-General.

I HAVE had the advantage of talking these points over with Mr. Malkin. I deal with them seriatim as lettered in the margin.

A. If the Admiralty requisitions (i.e., permanently requisitions) an enemy merchantman, the ship becomes a Government ship" within Section 80 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, and can be registered accordingly. If the ship is within Article 2 of Convention VI., the late owner would be entitled (in the absence of arrangement to retransfer) to money compensation in lieu of the ship.

B.

After such a requisition a foreign Court ought to recognize the Govern- ment title, and, if the ship's papers are in due order, would, I think, do so.

C. It seems to me that such a vessel when engaged in commerce is not a “public ship" in the relevant sense, for the twenty-four hours' rule really applies to vessels (whether actually owned by the Government or not) acting with or forming part of naval forces.

D. I therefore think these risks are not so serious as to require this limitation to be insisted on, though, of course, some risk of raising litigious or diplomatic questions would be run. However, if the neutral Court or Government takes the right view, I think the result would be in our favour.