CO129-521-2 Piracy in Chinese waters- anti-piracy measures 9-1-1930 - 10-4-1930 — Page 168

މ

198

whose immunity had come to be attributed to the fact that

it was well known that proper precautions were always taken

on board vessels of the Douglas line.

4.

The case of the "Haiohing" however shows that the

proper organisation of measures of internal defence cannot

in itself be regarded as a guarantee against the occurrence

of piratical attacks. On the other hand it does without

doubt show. that if all ships were as well organised as the

"Hiching" there would be little chance of piratical attacks

succeeding.

5.

But the question which presents itself once more

forcibly to my mind is whether the officers of merchant

ships can reasonably be expected to combat pirates in this

way, and how far, when piracy is known to be constant danger

and not a mere potential risk, the onus of providing for

their own defence can fairly be placed upon the shipping

companies. It seems to me unsuitable that it should be so.

I have already discussed this point in my despatch Number

1055 of July 20th last but the "Haiching" incident impels

me to revert to it.

6.

in

In the above-mentioned despatch I put forward the

view that the shipping companies, in supposing that all

the responsibility lies with His Majesty's Armod Oroes,

were just as much in error as the Chiefs of Staff,

assuming that the defence of merchant shipping is primarily

a matter which concerns the shipping companies who should

enguge and equip their cmployees with that specific end

in view. This standpoint I still maintain.

But the

question is one which seems more capable of satisfactory

solution if the argument is conducted not on the basis of

rights but of expediency and common sense. Obviously

shipping companies cannot expect to have the full and

unconditional