174
HONGKONG DAILY PRESS, FRIDAY, AUGUST 4TH,
HONGKONG
LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL.
(Continued from page 2)
11. In these circumstances and as a test case a statement of claim was filed on the 5th December. 1919, by the Shipowners Protection Association through the own ers of the Steamship Wollowra for the recovery of $696.672.34 the profit retained by the Government in respect of the use of that ship.
12. On the 19th day of January, 1920, the then Honourable the Colonial Secre- tary. being aware that this was not an isolated claim but a test claim brought by one only of your Petitioners to test the legality or otherwise of the action of the Government of Hongkong. made the following statement the Legislative Council (1920 Hansard p. 8) -
in
19-Your Petitioners desire to protest against the compensation tendered by the proposed Ordinance stating that the same is wholly inadequate.
1922
"The owners have come to the con- clusion that the remuneration offered by the Government is not only wholly inadequate but must result in a heavy loss to the owners.
WH
20.--Your Petitioners desire to further point out that negotiations have for some The use of the word "Government" in time past been proceeding with the Gov-this letter is somewhat equivocal, and in ernment of Hongkong and a tentative our reply made it quite clear proposal was made to your Petitioners that it WA5
the Imperial Govern- which met with Your Petitioners apment, and not the Hongkong Government, proval but notwithstanding such approval which was responsible for this scheme. the Government have after consulting the The Government's reply, which was dated Unofficial Members of the Councils with April 15th, said: drawn their proposal.
21-Your Petitioners therefore urge that the Bill be so modified as to gave the rights of all your Petitioners to prosecute their claims unimpaired in the Courts or in the alternative to distribute the afore- said sum of $2,231,204.11 rateably amongst For in its present. your Petitioners.
And your Petitioners will ever pray, etc. Dated this third day of August, 1922. OBSERVATIONS BY COUNCIL. Mr. ALABASTER, ia one of his comments, referred to the quotation in the petition from a speech by the present Officer Ad- ministering the Government, and said:- "The speech shows that after the war,
form the Bill is in the opinion of your Petitioners unwarranted, unjust, inequit With regard to the European Com able and unfair and represents an attempt munity, I will deal first with the proto tax ships not registered in this Colony, posal I laid down before the Counel for building a hotel and flats in Kow- loon. We had money for the work, or thought we had, and things had reach ed the stage of architects being on the noirt of making preliminary plans when the owners of vessels requisitioned under the local scheme bethought them selves that there was no reason why the profits made under this scheme should be devoted to improvements beneficial to the Colony, such as providing hotel and housing accommodation and also extending facilities
for education
among the various classes of the com munity. They saw no reason why the money should be devoted to those pur poses, but thought that the money should come back into their own pockets. Just leave the community of this Colony to judge which is the better way of disposing of profits, which may be considered war profits, and which
would have gone at home into the m - perie! Muchoquan The Citvernment in view of the action taken, which may in time come before the Courts, do not feel in a position to spend any of those profits on the proposals until the Courts have finally dealt with the matter. Therefore the Colony has been deprived
of what it urgently needs-hotel accom- modation and money which might have been advanced for the purpose of build- ing houses when the shore of building flats was given up. The University also has been deprived of a quarter of a million of dollars and education generally of a sum of five lakhs of
dollars.
13. Subsequently on the 25th August, 1920, the Government consented to the case bring postponed until the return of the then Acting Colonial Secretary—Mr. Fietcher-to the Colony. On the 8th June, 1921, the Crown Solicitor by letter to your Petitioners Solicitors stated that the condition of postponement until Mr. Fletcher's return was then still insisted on by the Government.
1920, the Government was still retain ing these profits, made out of shipping control, and that they were proposing to spend them on purposes in no way con- nected with the war." He continued:
the
5
leave the adjustment thereof to a later date as your Petitioners considered that their ships were required for furthering the interests of the British Empire in the late war and understood that moneys received by the Hongkong Government by reason of such action would after making adequate compensa- tion to the owners be remitted to Eng- land and used in connection with the late war.
In clause 12 of the Petition it is stated that on the 19th January. 1920, the then to the use to which the money should be Colonial Secretary made a statement as put. 1 would point out that there is a
You were informed at the meeting held on the 25th March that this Govern- ment has definite instructions to see that remuneration of colonial register-large gap between the two dates. vessels is not appreciably higher or lower than that of competing vessels registered in the United Kingdom.' The remuneration payable in respect of the latter class of vessel is, it is understood, under discussion; but this Government is advised that the rate actually in force is appreciably lower than that now offered to your clients. In the circumstances this Government is precluded, by its instructions, from offering more favourable terms than those which have been put before you; but it will watch closely the progress of negotiations in the United Kingdom, in order than any concession made there may be introduced also in the local scheme."
When the scheme came into force this Government stated quite clearly that we were merely agents and any money that accrued
The next paragraph discussed the losses which they said would be incurred under the scheme, and in our reply we said :--
GENTLEMEN,-1 201 directed to knowledge the receipt of your letters of the 19th April, and the 1st May, regarding the Hongkong Shipping Con- trol Scheme, and at the same time to express regret that they have remained so long unanswered.
come would be.
was going to the Imperial Government. We then began to look into the details of the scheme and there was nothing at the time to show what the out- It was not merely a question of war risk. That was quite a minor point. The total sum we spent on war risk was $44,000. As a matter of fact, it was a question of the whole liability; anything might have happened; it was a question which way the war went. and the Government did not see why as agents it should take on this responsibility unless it was covered. We put the point to the Home Government and the Home
Government asked us to take the whole risk. We accepted that and in the circum- stances we could not pay over the receipts from the ships until we were out of the wood-until the result of the control scheme were known. We did not finally wind up the scheme until March. 1919. We then put the position before the Home Government and they allowed us to re tain the profits which had been made. 1 want that point to be quite clear.
The
scheme was not run with any intention of using the money acorning from it for the purposes of the Colon
The COLONIAL SECRETARY added: The ac-petition to the Council was received by me only shortly before one o'clock to-day I do not propose to go through it in any sense in detail. I mentioned that the Government was in entire sympathy with the owners and open to assist them as this opportunity to read the penultimate far as possible and I should like to take paragraph of my final report informing the Government of the conclusion of the work under the scheme.
2.-With regard to the question of re- muneration to owners, this Govern- ment. as you are aware, is acting under the instructions of His Majesty's Gov- ernment. His Excellency has made re- presentations by telegram on the sub- ject.
3. As to the question of legal authority, the ships have been requisi- tioned on behalf of, and under instruc- tions from, His Majesty's Government, who have instructed this Government to superintend their management.
In these circumstances this Government must refer you to His Majesty's Gov- ernment on the point of legal authority for the requisitioning.
"The thanks of the Government are above all due to the owners of the ships, upon whose loyal and patriotic co-ope ration it has been able to rely from the beginning to the end. It must be re- membered that the owners found them- selves deprived of a very large part of their earnings, at a time of maximum freights when their competitors were making enormous profits; and there has been not one complaint. The Ship- owners' Protection Association, whose title explains its object, has maintained most cordial relations with the Govern- ment throughout, and has given very great assistance. The Association's Chairman, Mr. S. T. Williamson, put his experience and advice wholly at the Government's service, and he did much to solve difficulties and to smooth away misunderstandings. It may he recorded that, in spite of the many points of law which arose and the in- evitable differences of opinion, every question in dispute was invariably settled in a spirit of friendly compro-
This Government will, however, learned Attorney General pointed out On the first reading of the Bill the
closely watch the working of the requisi- that at the time when the ships were first
tion scheme, and I am to assure you brought under control the whole Empire
that the interests of the owners will receive its sympathetic consideration." was fighting for its national existence.
We then received the letters of April Many things had to be done for which no strict legal justification could be found, 19th and 1st May, 1918 (reproduced in the occasion being urgent and the condi. the petition). In the first we were asked tions new. The comment of ur peti- among other things under what legisla- tioners on that is that mon. hitive authority we were acting. We re- you now hold have not been user theplied on May 14th as follows: purpose of protecting our national exist- ence. They are not asking for damages, they are not asking for the monies you have spent, but they are asking to have back the monies you have left over and which they say you illegally took. The learned Attorney-General stated that the great majority of shipowners in which the Government offered, which were United Kingdom accepted the terms
Blue Book rates. That was not so. They were compelled to accept those rates as the result of a Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament early in the war, and not as any part of post-war legisla tion. The Attorney-General also pointed out, and he made a great point of this in his speech, that the Government took the risk of any dangers to the ships due to the operations of war. Our reply to that the Government very that is this: wisely insured our ships with under writers and paid, as premiums, part of the profits that they obtained by running our ships. We are not asking for the return of those premiums; we are only
the money left over. daking fur learned Attorney-General stated that at one time the Government did offer the collections from this requisition fund if Imperial Government the whole of the they would accept the war risk, and the 15. Your Petitioners are aware that it Imperial Government refused to do so. is not unusual after wars for Acts to be
Why? The Imperial Government obvi- passed protecting persons who have acted ously did not wish to accept responsibility in good faith and in the supposed execu-
for an action which was in its inception tion of their duties from pains, penalties and throughout its career, entirely illogi- and punishment for actions not warrant-
cal and unjustified. The Government at ed by the law, but your Petitioners point risks than the Government did here, for Home would have accepted no further out that your Petitioners' claims have never been for damages but are merely they would have insured their ships and for the return of moneys standing to the
paid the premiums out of the very large credit of the Shipping Control Account profits they made. It is now proposed, we which were not required for the purposes
learn from the learned Attorney-General's of the war and which were obtained by speech on the first reading of the Ordin-mittee have been chosen, as an inde-you are all aware the Imperial Govern- the use of their ships. They desire res originally intended
ance, not to spend this money as was pectfully to point out that the effect of universities and other schemes but to
hotels,
flats, the Bill if passed would be to authorise redeem part of the war loan. The money the seizure in the year 1922 at a time when shipping is depressed aud freights that purpose and to state now that we will was not collected by the Government for are low of the moneys of British Comi- panies who are competing with alien com
use this money instead of other money which would have been allocated to the panies which were enabled to build up redemption of war loan in order to make Reserves during the war, through not it appear as if this money will in some being financially controlled. Your Peti-way be connected with the war, is, I tioners state that not only is shipping now submit, window dressing. depressed and freights low but that it is Practically impossible to operate their ships at a profit. The Steamships Castle field and Manapouri have already been faid up and unless some financial assist ance is forthcoming many more will have to be laid up.
11.-Your Petitioners learn that it is
of the man to intro duce a Bill Into the Legislative Council to prevent the recovery of the guid moneys by your Petitioners, Separate actions have now been commenced in the Supreme Court of Hongkong on behalf of all ships concerned.
16. The result of the control caused a substantial financial loss in the case of several of the controlled ships and the officially audited accounts showing this loss have been submitted to the Hongkong Government and are as follows:-
S.S. Manapouri 8.8. Castlefield
S.8. Brisbane
S.S. Pheumpenh
$12,359.67. 19,134,44, 89,017.54 10,488.55.
36,319.62 13,667.28
8.S. Telemachus 8.9. Haimun 17. Your Petitioners desire also to point out that the needs of the Govern, ment for housing and education should be met by the community at large and not by what amounts to a special levy on certain small shipowning Companies a large proportion of whose shareholders are resident risewhere than in the Colony. It appears to your Petitioners that the Government of Hongkong are attempt ing to tax a small brauch of the com- munity of this Colony for social improve- monta by indirect legislation, many of the contributors being entirely unconnected with the Colony of Hongkong.
18. Your Petitioners desire to point out that the only commercial and indus- trial interests in this Colony which were put under Government Control and whose profits were impounded by the Govern ment during the war were the shipping interests; whilst all other commercial and industrial interests including Docks and Marine Insurance Companies both of which made large profits from shipping operated under Blue Book rates permitted to take and retain their profits.
were
on
The
It does not
alter the character of the goods at all if order to make them appear more attrac you re-arrange them in your window in tive. these people remains.
The wrong that has beer done to taken, the Government made profits and Their ships were
the owners have been reduced to very dire
straits as a result of that and they do back, or else that they, at any rate, be ask that, either they be given these moneys allowed to prove their right to the return of these moneys by action in the Courts.
COMMENT BY THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY: I would ask permission to comment briefly on this petition, in no spirit of hostility to the petitioners, but simply to make clear the Government's position in the matter. may, perhaps, be most simply explained by reading the Government's replies to the letters which appear in the petition. The first is that of 11th April, 1918, in which it is said:-
4.With regard to the request for a local Board of Arbitration. this Gov- ernment has definite instructions that tite remuneration to vessels under the local scheme is to approximate to that paid to the larger and more important class of vessels on the China Coast, which are under the Imperial Liner Requisition Scheme. It would, in the opinion of this Government, be inadvis able to suggest that the two classes of vessels should be dealt with separately. As I have stated above, representations have already been made to the Home Authorities on the question of remune- ration.
mise.'
All I wish to do is to emphasise the. 5. It would seem that the owners, in point that this Government has been pressing their request for a representa merely an agent in the matter; that it tive on the Shipping Control Committee, acted under the instructions of the are under a misapprehension as to the Imperial Government which it has not functions of that Committee. The Com- been able to vary one jot or tittle, As
pendent body having to connection with ment has passed an Indemnity Act and the requisitioned ships to advise the the question was put to us whether we Government on technical matters in shoukl come under that Act, or have a connection with the ships; the Govern- local ordinance to fit the local conditions ment having no one in its service who It was decided that, on the whole, a is conversant with the details of the local ordinance would be the better shipping business. The Government is method. always ready to consider sympatheti- I do not quite know the point in the cally any representations that the petition about myself but it was in the owners may wish to make; but it does summer of 1920. when 1 was acting not consider that any useful purpose Colonial Secretary, that the Followra would be served by putting an owner action was filed. It suited both sides not. on the Committee. The question of the to go on at the time. I was going on employment of the ships for the needs leave in 1921 and as I was the only person of the Colony is one on which the Gov who had intimate knowledge of the ernment is advised by the Vital Re working of the scheme, it was agreed by quirements Committee, and Mr. H. P. both sides to defer action till my return. White has been invited to accept a seat. The Indemnity Ordinance was introduced upon that body.
while I was away and the point was raised that action in this matter of the shipping money had been delayed owing to my ab sence, and the Bill was accordingly hel over until my return. We had been negotiating and now the Government finds it necessary to bring forward this Bill.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE OFFICER ADMINIS- TERING THE GOVERNMENT put the motion for the second reading of the Bill and declared it passed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thereupon may. ed that the Council go into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.
On the subject of remuneration our instructions from the Imperial Govern- ment were quite definite. We made repre- sentations about the rate of exchange and the cost and age of these vessels which were between 27 and 43 years old, but our instructions remained the same. We were to treat them on the same lizes as the vessels of the Indo-China Co. and the China Navigation Co. With regard to the point of the representation of the owners on the Shipping Committee, of which I was Chairman, there were two It
In Committee the Attorney-General members, Mr. Sutherland, of Messrs. moved verbal amendments to clauses 2 Young, of Messrs. Butterfeld & Swire. margin of the new print of the Bill and Jardine, Matheson & Co.. and Mr. and which had been printed on the They were appointed by the Shipping these were agreed to. Control, not by this Government, and it was thought inadvisable to have the owners of these ships on the Committee which was a purely advisory Committee; but I think the owners will agree that I consulted them on every possible detail.
The Council then adjourned until that remunerative charter-the date. Follouva-was made on the advice of Mr. Williamson, Chairman of the Ship- owners' Protection Association. In the first paragraph of the petition it is said
"The owners have now had the advantage of considering the informa- tion which was imparted by the Assist ant Colonial Secretary at the mecting at the Sanitary Board Office held on the 28th March last, when they were in- formed that the Government propose to pay tramp Blue Book rates, as to one tbird thereof at an exchange of 2/- to the pound, and as to the balance at the rate of exchange of the day of payment, plus 8/8 per ton for Eastern service, and 5 per cent. on the net profits in consideration of the services of the owners in running the ships on behalf of the Government.
The owners instruct us they have also had a number of meetings amongst themselves, at which the Government's proposals have been most carefully con- sidered and discussed.
Our
that
most
On the passage of the Bill through Coin- mittee being reported to the Council, His EXCELLENCY announced that it was pro-
posed to take the third reading of the Bill on August 17th.
A meeting of the Finance Committee was afterwards beid. The report of the proceedings will be published in morrow's issue.
OBITUARY,
DEATH OF DR. ALEXANDER G. BELL.
"In or about the month of March, 1918, the Government of Hongkong notified your Petitioners of their deci- sion to bring the said Steamships under Hongkong Government control. Your petitioners whilst protesting in every possible way did not oppose the action of the Government of Hongkong at the time, being contented, having paid under protest the moneys demanded, to phone.
to.
SYDNEY (NOVA SCOTIA), Aug. 2nd. The death is announced of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the tele-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.