CO885-24 — Page 322

OVERSEA PRIZE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE.

PAGE

18

14

1, 27

ཆ ལྷམི རྒྱུ སྒྱུ ན

37

32

20, 34

འ

56

Thursday, 26th November, 1914.

Evidence taken at the Third Meeting.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

VICE-ADMIRAL ŠIR EDMOND J. W. SLADE, K.C.L.E., K.C.V.O. (in the Chair).

Mr. G. B. BARSTOW, C.B.

Mr. W. J. EVANS.

Mr. T. H. HOLT.

Mr. H. W. MALKIN.

Mr. G. RorER. Mr. C. TENNYSON

Mr. C. D. WAKELY.

Mr. R. A. WISEMAN (Secretary).

Mr. HUGHES and Mr. WILLIAM RICHARDS attended.

ase of

1. (Chairman.) I understand this is a moving these ships from the Cape to Australia ?—

Mr. Hughes.) Yes.

2. And you are willing to make an offer to do it for a certain aum ?--Yes.

3. When you made that suggestion what had you in your mind as to what the sum would actually cover?— The London Chamber of Commerce approached me first on the subject and asked me whether I would undertake it, and I said I would. Then I assumed that someone

was going to be my principal, that I was merely going to do it for somebody-the Admiralty or the Colonial Office and send in an account, and collect as far as I possibly could from the consignees, and what I could not collect from them somebody would stand behind me. That is how the matter stood. Then when we came to talk it over with Mr. Tennyson and various lawyers they said that would not do at all. I think Mr. Richards would tell you our position better than I can. (Mr. Richards.) There are three ships, the "Birkenfels," the "Apolda" and the "Hanım." The "Birkenfels" is bound from New York to porte in Australia with general cargo. The "Apolda" is bound from Antwerp and Hamburg to ports in Australia with about 6,000 tons of cargo on board. The "Hamm" is also bound from Antwerp and Hamburg to Australia, but she has cargo, I believe, for Batavia too, which produces a little complication. I understand the Apolda "turned some of her cargo out at the Cape which would leave room for the "Hamm's" Australian cargo, and the general proposal. I understand, is that, the "Birkenfels" being a full ship with about 11,800 tons of cargo, the Hamm cargo should be sorted out between the Batavia cargo and the Australian cargo, and the Australian cargo put into the "Apolda," leaving the Batavia cargo with the ship at Cape Town. On that basis it has been calculated that the "Apolda” can just take the "Hamm cargo. Then there are the expenses and possibly damage of handling both the Batavia cargo and the Australian cargo of the" Hamm," and complications arising from over-stowage, and those things, and a certain amount of expenditure in the colonies also in the same connection. I do not know whether all three ships are free of responsibilities at Cape Town, but it has been 'suggested that any arrangement should be free of any unknown responsi bilities. By German law there are certain liabilities. and the owners have certain rights-1 do not know whether you have seen the Articles, but I have them here-in regard to the expenses of the ships at the ports at which they are detained, and that in some cases is working out at a very considerable sum.

4. But that is German law ?-It is German law, but two of these ships have bills of lading that give them the right to apply German law. The other has a clause which says: General average according to Antwerp Rules. 1800, and charges as accustomed." I have no doubt Germans would say

5. But the Germans have no right of appeal ?—No, but if this matter is to be dealt with on the lines of existing rights, whatever they may be, the Germans after the war would have rights on that basis,

property. Take the "Birkenfels." She will probably have incurred some considerable expenses.

7. Ana matter of fact we hear that the Birkenfels " has been condemned ?-She was one of the vessels that entered the port after the outbreak of war. If she has been condemned I agree at once. That removes

all the difficulties.

8. The process by which we are dealing with these ships is exactly the same in all cases, that is to say, they are brought into the Prize Court, and the pro- ceedings follow exactly the same lines up to the

sentence, and the sentence in the case of ships that are detained is that of detention. But the affect of the whole thing is to put British responsibility and British rights over the cargo for the time being in the place of the German ?--And not to revive them after the war?

9. I should say not. In the "Birkenfels "case you will probably find that up to the time that the crow left there was some considerable expenditure. Say it was 1,0001. for port dues, and wages and maintenance of the crew, and so on.

10. Of course, as far as that is concerned, the port dues would remain under any circumstances, probably. That will have to be a matter of arrangement between the people interested in the cargo and the Port authorities.

With regard to the maintenance and wages of the crew that is a matter for the Germans. The crew become prisoners of war. They are detained or sent. home as the case may be, and the only charges to which we shall be put are the charges for the actual feeding and housing of the men. That is a matter for the Government to arrange, and it will not come into the calculation at all?-That simplifies it very much. indeed,

11. Now what other charges are there -I gather that the ships have to be left in the same position in Australia, and in the same condition as they are in Cape Town with regard to the supplies of coal and everything else. Is that so?

12. No, I do not think so ?--That was Mr. Hughes's impression. (Mr. Hughes.) Yes.

(Mr. Tennyson,) You would have to make us an allowance for stores aud coal, but as long as it was represented by a cash allowance we do not want the stuff put back in Australia. 1 think we should have to have an allowance with regard to coal and stores.

(Chairman.) You have expenditure on coal and stores going on the whole time for the maintenance of the ship. The coal and the stores are on board the ship, and there is no liability on the Crown to return the ship with exactly the same amount of coal and stores and everything else on board as were there at the time that she was seized. (Mr. Richards) That simplifies matters. (Mr. Hughes.) That is not what we understood.

(Chairman.) That is understood, Mr. Tennyson ? (Mr. Tennyson.) I am not quite certain that I fol- lowed you.

13. (Chairman.) I say that there is no liability on the Crown to return the ship to the owners after the expiration of the war with the same amount of coal and stores on board as were on board at the time of her seizure (Mr. Hughes.) Let me put it like this. You are going to charge the owners of these goods the amount which it will cost to bring these ships from Cape Town to Australia!

6. I think not. The whole German rights at the present moment are extinguished as far as that part of the business is concerned.” I do not mean the rights of

(6)25140-Er 1 & Wt 83091–925 20, 8, 30 12,15 & 8

A

1.27

MR. C. H. ROSS

12

MR. C. TAYLOR

7

MR. E. VERNER

14

MR. L. II. WALTERS

25

CONVERSATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ELECTRIC LIGHT

GAS COMPANIES, &c.

AND

46-52

INDEX

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

ELEC.O. 885

24 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO