of the 18th April, last to the granting of the Royal Assent to
562 Ordinance 33 of 1930.
As regards the following note by the Board of Trade on subsection (3) of section 3 of Ordinance 36 of 1899:-
"Is there any objection to inserting the provision as to forfeiture and penalty as contained in section 67 of The Imperial Act, retaining at the same time the provision that the registry shall become null and void?"
The Harbour Master states:-
The declaration referred to is with regard to the intention of the owner not to trade with the vessel to any other place than here. The declaration in section 87 of The Merchant Shipping Act is with regard to title or ownership. I think it would be sufficient to make the Registry null and void as it is only re-enacting the law in force here since 1855 in this particular.
With regard to the following marginal query by the Board of Trade on subsection (2) of section 4 of Ordinance 33 of 1899:- "Should not River Steamers be referred to definition clause 3(a) of this clause and clause 10(1)?"
The Harbour Master states:-
I do not think River Steamers need be specially referred to. If such a steamer was not a "British/Colonial ship exceeding 30 tons" she would be a Foreign Ship having a certificate. Under section 10 and in that case the officer's certificates must be in accordance with the law (a) ii and 10 - B (b) vi.
With regard to the following marginal query by the Board of Trade on subsection (3) of section 4 of Ordinance 36 of 1899:
"Leaving the waters. Why is the language altered from 'leaving any port in the Colony' in sub-clause 3 above?"
I may mention that the reason for the alteration is that it is desired not to put registered steam launches at a disadvantage.
Page 363
Page 363
Page 363
...
...
Page 363
of the 18th April. last to the granting of the Royal Ascent to
562 Ordinance 33 of 1330.
As regards the f
following note by the Board of
Trade or subsection (3) of section 3 of Ordinance 36 of 1999:- 1
"Is there any objection to inserting the provi-
sion as to forfeiture and penalty as contained d suction
67 of The Imperial dot retaining at the same
time the provision that the registry shall be-
come null and void?"
the Harbour Master states: -
The declaration coferred to is with regard to the
intention of the owner not to trade with the vessel to any
other place than hin. The declaration in 87 of The Merchant
Shipping Act is with regard to title or ownership. I think it
would be sufficient to make the Registry null and void it is
only reenacting the law in force here since 1855 in this partij
culer.
With regard to the following marginal query by th Board of Trade on subsection (2) OR gection 4 of Ordinance 33
at 1299:- "Should not River Steamers be referred to
seo de
finition olagan and ? (a) of thig clause and clause 10 (1) faj
the Harbour Master states: -
I do not think River Stoaners need be spacially
referred to If such a sterior was not a "British/Colomfal
ship exceediat 30 bong" she would be a Foreign Chip having a
→ butificateTM
s30 10 - 3
Passender Linder section 10 and in that case the officers
certificates must be in recordance with the law
(a) ii and 10 - B (b) vi.
}
With regard to the following marginal query by the
Board of Trade on aubsection (3) of section 4 of Ordinance 86
of 1392:
"Leaving the waters. Why is the language altered
from leaving any port in the Colony" in sub-
clause 3 above?"
I may mention that the reason for the alteration is that it is desired not to put registered steam launches at a disadvantade
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.