until sufficient apparatus for preservation of life had been supplied. This was done & the vessel cleared on the afternoon of the 14th September.
In refusing a clearance under the circumstances above mentioned, the Harlow Master acted in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 26 of 1891 of Hong Kong (a copy of which is enclosed) & the Attorney General of the Colony has advised that having regard to the provisions of Section 4(5), and 6(1) of that Ordinance, such action was correct.
It appears, however, to Mr Chamberlain that it is open to question whether the "Tartar" being employed, though temporarily, as a transport in the service of the United States Government should have been considered a public ship and thus bound to comply with the provisions of the local law.
I am to request you to take these matters into your consideration and advise Mr Chamberlain:
1. Whether the "Tartar" was a public ship?
2. Whether the "Tartar" was bound to comply with the provisions of the local law of Hong Kong while in the waters of the Colony.
3. Whether the Harlow Master was justified in...
" until sufficient afferatus for preservation of life had been suffled. This was
done & the revel cleared
on
14
4.
th
the afternoon of the
September.
In refusing a clearance
under the circumstances
above mentioned, the
Harlow Master acted in Hawbone
accordance with the provision_
of Ordinance 26 91891 g
д
Hong Kong (a coby gwhich is enclosed) & the Attomey General of the Colony has advised that having regard to the provisionsg Section 4(5), and beatin
6 (1) go that ordin
of
отки се
action was conect.
Such
5. It appears, however,
to Mr Chamberlain that it is open to question whether
DRAFT.
575
the" "Tartar" being employed
though temporarily,
Bo
a
transfoort in the seurice of the United States Gost
shoned most have been
considered
ras
a
public ship
such most bound
comply with
the provisions
of the local law.
I am to request you to
take these matters into you
consideration
and
な
adrise Ur Chamberlain
1.
2.
Whether the "Tartar
C
public ship?
Whether the Taitar'
was bound to comply
with
the provisions of the local
law
of Hong Kong while in
the waters of the Colony.
3. Whether the Staubour
Master
justified in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.