CO885-24 — Page 342

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

| | | | | | | |

Reference :-

NPM CO. 885

24 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

#8

4 January 1915.]

OVERSEA PRIZE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE:

Mr. S. GARRETT,

(Mr. Garrett.) I will not take up your time morə about it if that is all.

(Chairman.) That is the whole matter.

(Mr Garrett.) I thought it would be much more serious than that.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) Do you mind going over this agreement to see if you agree in substance with the few alterations which bave been made. May I give you the first copy of the agreement (handing the same to the Chairman)? The red ink alterations are his and the pencil alterations a e mine. I think this is almost an agreed thing now. There are a few little alterations by the Admiralty which are embodied, but they are very slight indeed. There is nothing until clause 4, I think.

(Mr. Garrett.) Clause 6 is the first substantial one. (Sir Henry Johnson.) May I ask you, sir, to turn over and you will see in my handwriting, on the back of the same clause, the clause I propose with your approval to substitute for that clause.

(Chairman.) Shall I read it?"On the arrival of "the vessel at Boston and New York respectively the "contractor may, without any previous notice to the "representatives of the owners or receivers of the cargo, discharge the cargo, or any part thereof, ou any wharf "or quay where it shall be, as always, at the risk and That is in expense of the owners of the cargo."

place of

(Sir Henry Johnson.) It is in lieu of the demurrage clause, so that if there is any delay it will be the fault of the contractors. Mr. Tennyson, we discussed this point.

(Mr. Tennyson.) Yes.

(Mr. Garrett.) We do not want to be liable to demurrage, but we do not object to that.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) That settles that. (Chairman.) On clause 6, what is the point?

(Sir Henry Johnson.) In clause 7 Mr. Garrett wanted

to have the contract set out and we agreed about that. There is no objection to the amount to be paid to the contractor being put in as a substantive sum that I can

Bee.

(Chairman.) No.

(8ir Henry Johnson.) Aud then all those clauses and the cost of about sending officers and crew insuring can come out because they are included in the 7,4701.

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) Then we come to 3 and 4, which you have now settled with Mr. Garrett yourself, air; 4 is on the same footing, and 5 Mr. Garrett had already agreed. I do not know who the proper officer' may be. The Treasury's solicitor has struck out the King's Proctor and put in the proper officer of the Prize Court." There seems to be some repetition in that clause, but we will settle that. Is it not the King's Proctor.

(Chairman.) Is it not usually called in a sort of general term "the proper officer of the Prize Court "P

(Sir Henry Johnson. Very probably.

(Mr. Tennyson.) I think the reason probably is that

he thinks the proper officer would include people acting for the King's Proctor.

(Chairman.) It is a general term which will cover everybody,

(Sir Henry Johnson.) What is the object of the alteration in the proviso?

(Mr, Garrett.) The abject is this: if any expenses are incurred for which I am liable, expenses of the voyage. I mean for instance, take a salvage, if the ship got into trouble and became liable to pay salvage 1 should have to be liable for that to you, because I undertake to pay the whole expenses of the voyage; on the other hand you would recover from the under. writers, and I want to have the benefit of the recovery. (Sir Henry Johnson.) That is perfectly correct. Then you and I must adjust this clause because you must not refer to policies now that we have struck them out, and we must put it in some other way.

(Mr. Garrel.) That is only a matter of wording, (Sir Henry Johnson.) But it is a rather difficult matter. We will arrange that. You did suggest that

if the vessel was brought back in cargo you should have the profit, but that you have abandoned, I think.

[Continued.

(Mr. Garrett.) That is the next clause. (Sir Henry Johnson.) No, it is in the provimo. (Mr. Garrall.) Yes.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) That I could not possibly agree to; it was no part of the original arrangement.

(Mr. Garrett.) You would have the gross freight earned homewards and the expenses of the voyage also.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) Our compact with you is that you should pay for bringing her home in ballast. If we bring her home in cargo that is our affair. You have That includes that, does it not, to pay us 7,4701. Mr. Tonnyson?

(Mr. Tennyson.) Yea.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) You have to pay us 7,4702. (Mr. Garrett.) Does that 7,470. include the expense of bringing her home in ballast.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) Yes, and insuring her and everything.

(Mr. Garrett.) It would come to this, that you would get the grows freight and not pay any of the expenses of earning the freight.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) How do you mean?

(Mr. Garrett.) You would get the expense of bringing the ship home in ballast, and also the gross freight which you earned for bringing the cargo.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) We do not know that we are to bring her home in cargo.

(Chairman.) We cannot say at the present moment what is to happen.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) That is what the bargain was, reasonable or unreasonable, all through.

(Chairman.) That is what was put to me.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) At the first interview, which was in Mr. Harris's room, I ain sure that was said.

(Mr. Garrett.) I do not remember anything being said about bringing cargo home.

(Mr. Tennyson.) I have a note here of it in the form of a minute which I wrote the same day.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) There must have been some- thing said about it because it was on the tapis, certainly, because Mr. Holt had got a memorandum out for the contractor which did mention that fact, so that it must have been under discussion. Whether it was mentioned at that interview I do not profess to remember.

like.

(Mr. Holt.) The question of the ballast cropped up. (Mr. Tennyson.) I can read out my minnte, if you

(Mr. Garrett.) If you would not mind.

(Mr. Tonyson.) "We to make an agreement with "the contractor to take ou the ship and cargo, and to "bring the ship back to London in ballast on such "terms as we think fit. If the expense of the whole "undertaking turns out to be less than the amount paid ** over, 12,000%.. we to return the balance to the parties "who paid it."

(Mr. Garrett.) That is all right, but there is nothing That is what I there about bringing cargo home. moant.

(Mr. Tennyson.) No, but that is what the agreement went to.

(Mr. Garrett.) Certainly, if you bring her home in ballast we pay the cost, but it seems a rather large order that we should pay the cost of bringing the ship home when you are to get the gross freights.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) I always thought it was 40 intended.

(Mr. Tennyson.) That certainly was the intention. (Sir Henry Johnson.) What do you think about that, Mr. Chairman ?

(Chairman.) I am rather at a disadvantage; I was not present at the original meeting, but all through it has been put to me, ever since I came into the case, that the cargo owners' representatives were to bring the ship home in ballast, or pay us the estimated cost of bringing her home whatever happened. Supposing we were to use the ship anywhere else, or to send her anywhere else, that money would be paid over to us in any event.

(Mr. Garrett.) That is certainly so, so far as our paying the expense of bringing the ship home in ballast in concerned, and I am not questioning that, but that at the interview Mr. Tennyson speaks of it was made quite clear to me and the other persons present representing the cargo and my recollection is, speaking subject to

4 January 1915.]

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. 8. GABRETT.

Mr. Tennyson's notes, that nothing was said at that meeting about the possibility of bringing cargo home.

(Mr. Holt.) Oh, yes.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) I think something was anid, but what was said I cannot say.

(Mr. Garrett.) At any rate, I am quite clear it was not said then, that although you might earn thousands of pounds by bringing a cargo home you were to keep theso thousands of pounds and we were to pay the expenses of the voyage. That was never said, I am quite clear.

(Mr. Holt.) You were to pay the cost of bringing her home under ballast.

(Mr. Garrett.) It puts a tremendous premium on your getting a cargo homewards that you should have the gross freight and bear no expense in earning it.

(Mr. Holl. There is no decision that she is coming home in cargo at the moment; she may come home in ballast.

(Mr. Garrett.) I know, but what we are discussing is the possibility of her coming home with cargo.

(Chairman.) Yes, but I do not quite see your point, or why you should lay such stress on this. The whole business is this; the ship is being sent on a long devious voyage for the purpose of taking your clients' goods from where they are to where they want them to be P

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes.

(Chairman.) And in order that we should do this your clients agreed to pay the bare cost of bringing the ship home empty as she stands?

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes.

(Chairman.) That has got to be done under any circumstances?

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes

(Chairman.) What we do with the ship in the meantime is no matter to your cliente.

(Mr. Garrett) Pardon me, it is not in the mean. time; it is in the course of the voyage. The question is what is the cost of bringing her home. Is it the gross cost without deductions or is the cost of bringing her home the gross cost less what the ship earns?

(Chairman) No, the ship does not belong to your cliente; your clients have absolutely no interest in the ship of any kind or description, not the smallest. They have absolutely no interest in the ship whatsoever of any sort or description,

(Mr. Garrett.) The cost of a voyage is the expense of coal, wages and so on, less what the ship earns.

(Chairman.) Not a bit of it-excuse me; the cost to the Crown of doing this thing for you is the cost of running this ship ont with her cargo, and running it back again empty. That is a perfectly fair charge to make to you. What the Crown chooses to do with the ship after they have discharged your cargo, haa lolutely nothing in the world to do with your clients that I can see. It is not as if your clients had any interest in the ship, or in what has got to be done with her.

(Afr. Garrett.) I do not quite accept your premise; this is being done for their benefit, but it is also for the benefit of the Government. You are to get 9,0001, of freight out of it, and you are only spending 7,000l. or whatever it is, and you are getting your ship to a market.

(Chairman.) It would be very much cheaper for us to discharge your cargo on the Mole, at Gibraltar, and bring her home here and sell her the week after next; we would get a much bigger price for her, and it would le altogether to our advantage, and we are absolutely under no obligation whatsoever to take your cargo.

(Mr. Garrett.) You would get into a rumpus if you did not.

(Chairman.) I do not know.

(Mr Garrett.) I should like to show you some of the telegrams I have had from America about it: they are not fit for publication.

(Chairman.) But that is no ground whatsoever for your claiming to get any rebate at the present moment on the original bargain.

(Mr. Garrett.) My remarks are really with regard to what Sir Henry Johnson said, that this was part of the uriginal bargain; I do not think it was.

[Continued.

39

(Sir Henry Johnson.) It was in contemplation from the beginning that we might bring her home, and it was stated that we might bring her home in cargo, and it was never suggested that if we did you should be let We did not know at the off any part of the 7,4701. moment that it was that sum, but whatever it was-

(Mr. Garrett.) Will being brought home under cargo in any way increase our burden of the expenses? Will there be any wharf or dock dues, or anything of the kind What has the contractor to bear in consider- ation of his 7,4701. Is he to bear everything?

(Sir Henry Johnson.) I showed you the contract;

he has to pay everything-wharf dues and all.

(Mr. Garrell.) So that having a cargo will not increase my burden in any way.

(Chairman.) Not in the least.

(Mr. Tennyson.) I may say that this point was expressly put into the first draft agreement made at the end of October.

(Mr. Garrett.) I have never approved any draft. (Mr. Tennyson.) That is merely taking it back. (Sir Henry Johnson.) I do not say that you are committed.

(Mr. Garrett.) I have seen many editions of it. (Mr. Holt.) There was a fixed sum of 8,5001. men. tioned at that meeting in Mr Harris's room which gave all the details and it was subsequently reduced.

(Mr. Garrett.) I remember that.

(Mr. Tennyson.) That draft is within a fortnight of the meeting.

(Mr. Garrett.) Let us pass on.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) There is no objection to Mr. Garrett seeing the contract with the contractor. One does not want to exhibit this agreement, but there is no objection to him or his clienta seeing it, is there P

(Chairman.) Not in the least.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) I think you have seen it, Mr. Garrett.

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes P

(Sir Henry Johnson.) I am to settle it with the Committee to-night and you shall have a copy of it.

(Mr. Garrett.) The object of those words in red ink at the end of that clause, which was originally clause 7, is what I said just now, that if you recover from underwriters any sum for which I am liable I am to have the benefit of that.

(Chairman) That is quite right.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) That wording you and I have to settle.

(Mr. Garrett.) Yes. Then in clause 8 the object of those alterations is to provide for the case of the ship never completing the voyage, that is, supposing she is lost on her outward voyage. The freight would never have been earned and the minimum of 9,0001. will not apply.

(Chairman.) No.

(Mr. Garrett.) I do not know whether you have anything to any on the wording of that, Johnson ?

(Sir Henry Johnson.) Nothing I cannot settle with you in two minutes-nothing to trouble the Committee with.

(Mr. Garrett.) That is all, I think; as to the altera- tions in the original clause 9, I think there is nothing in them.

(Chairman.) They are only verbal, are they? (Sir Henry Johnson.) You might tell the Chairman, if you would, what you were thinking of doing about the guarantee policy in clause 2.

(Mr. Garrett.) What I suggested to my clients about that is that you want a guarantee against claims by cargo owners under clause 2. What I propose to do-I am not sure that I shall be able to manage it--is to get a policy of indemnity signed by five or six of the principal insurance companies who are interested in this business for totals amounting to 200,0001., each company being liable only for its own subscription.

(Sir Henry Johnson.) They would be first-rate companies.

(Mr. Garrett.) They are perfectly well-known to Sir Henry Johnson, and as long as they are good cum- panies-in fact, you said that if I got the whole signed

E 4