He is informed that the owners of the Inkula took this very course in another case and paid up to £700. This should be verified; but was it reasonable to insist that the owners Italians should reship these men as passengers at £17 a head or whatever the actual sum was when by a definite agreement they could pay over to the men a sum of money smaller in amount but which would clearly not leave them destitute for some time.
In what respects did the men allege that they had been misled as regards their agreement? On what grounds does the harbour master in his earlier minute suggest that the owners' guarantee might not be genuine and in his later minute that their action, which consisted in discharging men in accordance with a contract with a certain sum of money in their possession and a promise to pay the cost of repatriation if they became distressed sailors, was 'unscrupulous'.
7. What is the exact law and practice in the United Kingdom? There must be numbers of cases where foreign crews are discharged in British ports. If they have some money in their pockets it surely is not insisted that the ship owners shall pay for sending them back at once if the contract does not provide for it.
We must safeguard Hong Kong from being over-run with castaways but equally we must in the interests of the reputation of the port be clear that we are dealing fairly with British shipping.
I should be inclined to put points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, to the Governor and points 5 and 7 to the Board of Trade.
Please consider a deal as harr consider CPL best irite GB asin mena gove on for You think BT to 5 & for pencint 8 Feb.
Page 4
CONFIDENTIAL
Hongkong.
900
43235
Inclosure 1.
W
Sir,
Reeb C 0.
2974
549
MAJ 30 JAL. 05
Government House,
Hongkong, 27th December, 1904.
Du referring to your telegram of the 22nd instant enquiring if the crew of the S.S. "Inkula" had been discharged on the terms agreed and to my reply of the 23rd stating that all of them had been discharged except two who declined to sign off their agreement, I have the honour to transmit for your information a further minute by the Harbour Master from which it appears that I was in error in assenting in my previous telegram of the 15th to the crew being discharged on the owners guarantee of the cost of repatriation without the further stipulation that the owners should maintain the men in the Sailors' Home until repatriated.
2.
The due provision for the subsistence and maintenance of seamen of which the Harbour Master has to be satisfied under Subsection 5. (a), Section 7 of "The Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1899", before allowing discharge in the port, is usually taken to be the deposit with him of $60 for the subsistence and maintenance of each man in the Home, it having been found by experience that a deposit of this amount is nearly always sufficient to provide for a seaman until an opportunity occurs to send him to Europe. In the present instance the
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ALFRED LYTTELTON, K.C., M.P.
&c..
&c..
&c..
men
He is informed that the owners of the Inkula took this v
course in another case and paid up to £700. This should be
verified;but was it reasonable to insist that the owners
Italians should reship these men as passengers at £17 a head or
whatever the actual sum was when by a definite agreement
they could pay over to the men a sum of money smaller in
amount but which would clearly not leave them destitute
for some time.
6.
In what respects did the men allege that they had
been misled as regards their agreement: On what grounds does the harbour master in his earlier minute suggest
that the owners' guarantee might not be genuine and in his later minute that their action, which consisted in
discharging men in accordance with a contract with a
certain sum of money in their possession and a promise
to pay the cost of repatriation if they became distressed
sailors, was 'unscrupulous' .
77. What is the exact law and practice in the United Kingdom? There must be numbers of cases where foreign crews are discharged in British ports. If they have some money in their pockets it surely is not insisted that the ship owners shall pay for sending them back at once if the contract does not provide for it.
We must safeguard Hong Kong from being over-run with castaways but equally we must in the interests of the reputation of the port be clear that we are dealing fairly with British shipping.
I should be inclined to put points 1, 2, 3, 4,6, to the Governor and points 5 and 7 to the Board of Trade.
Please conside a deal as
harr consider CPL
best
irite GB
asin mena
gove on for
You think
BT to 5 & for pencint
8 Feb.
4
CONFIDENTIAL
Hongkong.
900
43235
Inclosure 1.
W
Sir,
Reeb
C 0.
2974
549
MAJ 30 JAL. 05
Government House,
Hongkong, 27th. December, 1904.
Du keferring to your telegram of the 22nd. in-
stant enquiring if the crew of the S.S. "Inkula" had been dis-
O charged on the teras agreed and to my reply of the 23rd. stat-
ing that all of them had been discharged except two who declined
to sign off their agreement, I have the honour to transsit for
your information a further minute by the Harbour Master from
which it appears that I was in error in assenting in my pre-
vious telegram of the 15th. to the crew being discharged on the
owners guarantee of the cost of repatriation without the fur-
ther stipulation that the owners should maintain the men in th
Sailors' Home until repatriated.
04
2.
The due provision for the subsistence and main
tenance of seamen of which the Harbour Master bas to be satis-
fied under Subsection 5. (a), Section 7 of "The Merchant Ship-
ping Ordinance, 1899", before allowing discharge in the port,
is usually taken to be the deposit with him of $60 for the sub-
sistence and maintenance of each man in the Home, it having
been found by experience that a deposit of this amount is near-
ly always sufficient to provide for a seaman until an opportuni
ty occurs to send him to Europe. In the present instance the
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ALFRED LYTTELTON, K.C., M.P.
&c..
&c..
&c..
men
་ ན་
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.