CO885-6 — Page 419

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TC.O. 882

Wilmi

12

(3) The question is whether when asked by a foreign Consul to deal with an offending seaman the Magistrate may decline to do so unless the Consul guarantees that the seaman shall not become a charge on the Colony.

Mr. Davidson seems to think the Magistrate ought not to decline.

4. The point is that Clause 9 sub-clause 2 would enable the Magistrate at the request of the Master of a German ship to search for an offending seaman not only on land but even on, say, a French ship. This the Solicitor to the Board of Trade considers (I should think rightly) might lead to trouble.

(5) 4 ̊ (4)—The Solicitor to the Board of Trade says it is for the Foreign Unice to decide whether the system should continue under which, while British ships leaving without certificated officers are liable to a fine and to refusal of clearance, foreign ships are only liable to rofusal of clearance.

I should think that if the Colony does not propose a fine on foreign ships we need not ask them to do so.

(6) 10-8 (b) VII.

Owners have to have their ships surveyed by a Government surveyor.

Among other things he is to declare that the ship is duly marked with deck and load lines.

The Solicitor to the Board of Trade asks Can it be contended that foreign ships should be so marked? But the Clause begins (sub-clause 2) by saying that in the case of foreign ships a survey shall not be required if they have from their own country a certificate equivalent to that required in the case of British ships, and that if a question of sufficiency arises the matter should be referred to the Governor. Perhaps the Governor might be told to waive the requirement of deck and load lines.

December 10, 1900.

J. A. C. T.

It still seems to me, as I have previously said, that the great majority of these matters do not concern the Foreign Office at all. Indeed, I cannot see that any of them are matters calling for an expression of the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-who is not concerned with either colonial legislation, or with the governance of merchant shipping and the administration of the Merchant Shipping law. If the Colonial Office and Board of Trade cannot settle these points between them it would seem desirable to refer them to the Law Officers of the Crown rather than to this department.

Of course if there were any special question of a novel character in the Ordinance which was thought to be likely to create international difficulties it might be useful for the Foreign Office to give their opinion on it. But I do not understand that it is considered that any such points arise and certainly attention has not been specifically directed to them on such ground.

I don't think (for instance) that the point dealt with in §§ 3 and 4 of the Colonial Office letter is such a point, though I agree with the suggestion made by the Board of Trade with regard to it.

to

I gather from § 5 that the Board of Tråde have probably already taken the opinion of Counsel on the point dealt with in that paragraph, and if it were necessary for us go into the matter we should, of course, like to see the Counsel's opinion, assuming my conjecture to be right. But I don't think that it really is a point to be decided by the Foreign Office,

As to §6 it is impossible satisfactorily to deal with an artract from a memorandum. The final provision of the sub-section appears to me to be of very doubtful expediency and it might possibly lead to remonstrance from Foreign States.

The matters mentioned in § 7 seem to me not directly to concern the Foreign Office. And finally, with regard to the whole of these matters, if it be necessary for us to consider them, I think we ought to have the advantage of the observations of the legal adviser to the Colonial Office before we are called on to do so. I should suppose that Mr. Cox has been consulted, but there is no indication to this effect, or hint as to what his views are.

W. E. D.

December 31, 1900.

28774

13

No. 7.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to GOVERNOR SIR II. A. BLAKE.

(No. 118.)

SIR,

[Answered by No. 8.]

Downing Street, April 12, 1901. WITH reference to my despatch, No. 357, of the 5th of November last,* relating to the Quarantine Rules embodied in table L of the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, 1899, I have the honour to inform you that I much regret the considerable delay which has occurred in dealing with the various questions raised in your despatch, No. 54, of the 10th of February, 1900.†

2. A number of important points have been raised in connection with this Ordin- ance which have involved protracted correspondence and frequent reconsideration, especially as grave doubts have arisen as to the validity of some of its provisions.

3. It is clear that in several points the Ordinance under consideration operates as an amendment of the provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. It is doubtful how far such amendments are not ultra vires of a Colonial Legislature; but without determining this question, I am unable to advise sanction of an Ordinance con- taining them, since the desire of His Majesty's Government is to secure throughout his dominions uniformity with regard to the matters dealt with by the Imperial Act.

4. The Ordinance has been referred to the Board of Trade, from whom I have received a memorandum, together with an annotated copy of the Ordinance,§ which I enclose for your information, with copies of the memorandum and of the letter]] from this office, transmitting it for observations. The marginal notes of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade show that, in his opinion, the Ordinance clashes with the Imperial Act in the following places:-

Section 3 sub-sections 2 (B) and 9, 10, 13.

Section 9 sub-section 2.

Section 10 sub-section (1) B.

Section 13.

Section 14 sub-sections 1 and 3.

Section 41 sub-section 5.

5. I may add to these section 37 sub-section 1 so far as it purports to apply to any steamship not exceeding 60 tons plying to any place outside the waters of the Colony. It is doubtful also whether sections 8 and 41 sub-section 2, which purport to impose on British ships greater penalties than those provided by the Imperial Act (sections 200 and 711) should be allowed.

6. In this list section 3 is of much importance. The Solicitor to the Board of Trade assumes in his criticism that "any Chinese person resident in the Colony," who is a lessee of Crown Lands includes persons not British subjects. In this case the Ordinance is really dealing with two different kinds of registry, viz., registration of ships in the Colony as British ships and the registration of Chinese vessels (or vessels owned by Chinese), which may not be registrable as British ships, but as to, and over which it is desirable that the Government should have some record and control; and the two classes should be distinguished more clearly, the former being left to be governed by the provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act as to Colonial registry (which should not be varied by the Colonial Ordinance), while the latter can be specifically provided for in the Ordinance.

7. It has also been found desirable to discuss those parts of the Ordinance which relate to foreign ships and seamen with the Foreign Office, to ascertain how far they would be agreeable to Foreign Powers.

8. The Foreign Office agree generally with the opinions of the Board of Trade. It seems desirable to bring section 9 into strict conformity with section 238 of the Imperial Act, so far as it relates to deserters, and in particular the powers given to the Magistrate to decline to deal with an offending seaman unless his Consul guarantees that he shall not become a charge on the Colony; and, by sub-section 2, to order search on a Foreign ship at the request of the Master of a Foreign ship, even if of another nationality, should be omitted. Offences other than desertion should be treated in a separate provision.

• 27110: not printed.

† No. 1.

Enclosure in No. 3.

Not printed.

No. 2.

9

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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