CO129-307 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [10-12] — Page 564

It is necessary, now, to refer to certain points in which,

after consulting with the Harbour Master, I omitted to adopt

the suggestions of the Board of Trade.

561

As regards subsection (2) of section 3 of Ordinance 38 of

1890 the Harbour Master reports as follows:-

We are dealing with two different kinds of Registry

(a) By British Subjects

(b) By Others.

The reason why (a) is not left to the provisions of the

Imperial Act is that it is desired to give the status of British

ships to a number of small craft whose owners being British Sub-

jects desire to go outside our waters without being put to the

expense and inconvenience of providing Certificated Masters and

of being hedged round with all the safeguards of Part I of

the Imperial Act.

The desirability of (b) was recognized as far back as

1858 and it formed a part of Ordinance No.4 of that year and has

been reenacted from time to time since then.

(b) has not been availed of probably because

(1) of the expense ($25), reduced by Ordinance

33 of 1899

(2) of the necessity for having certificated

officers, now made easier by Ordinance 34

of 1899, e.g. by permitting certificates of

lower grades.

In order to obviate the difficulty raised by the Board

of Trade as to subsection (2) of section 2 of Ordinance 38 of

1899 repealing by implication (without express power for that

purpose) the provisions of section 1 of the Imperial Act of 1894,

I beg leave to point out that by virtue of the amendment effected

by section 35 of the present Ordinance: "so much of the provisions

of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and of any Act amending the

same which are in force in England and are inconsistent with the

provisions of this Ordinance are repealed";

and it is hoped that the above amendment will remove one of the

main obstacles mentioned in the Secretary of State's Despatch