MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

CERTIFICATED OFFICERS FOR RIVER BOATS. SIR,-Having made some preparation to build a small iron steamboat, about 45 feet long, with the intention of taking passengers, and making short trips up and down the River Usk, but not out of it, should I be obliged to have a passed Captain and a certificated Engineer before I should be allowed to run her? I know the river very well, and have been with a Newport Pilot, and, having worked at an engineering firm nearly five years, have a good practical knowledge, and intend making the engines myself?-Yours, &c., Newport, April 28, 1877. LAUNCH.

[No foreign-going ship or Home Trade passenger ship is to go to sea from any Port in the United Kingdom unless the Master is certificated (Sec. 136, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854), and the Engineer or Engineers hold certificates (Sec. 5, Act of 1862). For river navigation it is not compulsory to employ a certificated Master and Engineer. If, however, the boat carries more than 12 passengers (Sec. 16, Act of 1876) she will have to be surveyed and certificated.]

MASTER'S CERTIFICATE.

SIR, I hold a Chief Mate's certificate of competency. If I join a vessel of about 700 tons burthen in the Foreign Trade, which does not carry a Second Mate with a certificate (Boatswain), will my time count good towards obtaining a Master's certificate? DAVID JONES.

Aberporth, Jan. 19, 1876.

[To obtain a Master's certificate the applicant must have been six years at sea, of which one year at least must have been as First or Only Mate, and one year as Second Mate. If, therefore, our Correspondent serves in a ship as First Mate, whether there is a Second Mate or not, he would be qualified according to the Statute. If, however, the holder of a Chief Mate's certificate acts as Second Mate, and signs articles as Boatswain, the service in the inferior capacity does not count in the superior.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

in an inferior one. If our Correspondent has complied with that regulation, he can go up for examination as Chief Mate.]

INDIAN CERTIFICATES OF MASTERS AND MATES.

SIR,-In your paper of the 1st of this month you published an Order in Council stating that Shipmasters' certificates obtained in Bengal are henceforth to enjoy the same privileges as if granted in London. I wrote to the Board of Trade asking if certificates of competency obtained in Bombay or other parts of India had the same privilege. The reply is in the negative. This seriously affects the interests of a friend of mine. Bombay, the principal Naval Station of India, examined men and granted certificates of competency to Masters and Officers long before Calcutta did; yet a Calcuttamade Captain can take command of a vessel or steamer at her launching, and navigate her to Bombay or elsewhere, whilst a Bombay or Madras Captain or Officer is not permitted to do so. Can you, sir, explain why Bengal is privileged and the rest of India tabooed in this matter?-Yours, &c., EDWIN S. ROBERTS.

London, July 10, 1876.

[Under the Order in Council of June 27, 1876, all certificates granted by the authorities of Bengal will have the same privileges as those issued in the United Kingdom; but Bengal certificates obtained before the 27th of June 1876 will not be treated on a footing of equality with certificates issued in the United Kingdom. The Bombay authorities grant certificates for-1st, coasting vessels; 2nd, for the Foreign Trade; but these certificates are only available in ships employed in the Coasting Trade of the Presidency, or in Bombay ships trading to or from the province. The authorities at Bombay not having complied with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the certificates granted by them are limited as here explained.]

CERTIFICATE AND COPY.

SIR,-I lost my certificate as Mate by the foundering of the barque Nancy Brysson, and likewise all my effects. On arriving in England Í applied for the renewal of my certificate on Sept. 3, but, on going to sign an agreement on the 18th in the barque Osborne, my certificate had not arrived. I again made another application, and likewise sent a telegram to the Registrar-General of Seamen, telling him that the ship was ready for sea. Again on the 21st I sent another telegram, informing the Registrar-General that I should lose my situation unless I received my certificate. On the 23rd I received an acknowledgment to my telegram of the 21st, saying that it was that day forwarded for the consideration of the Board of Trade. I again telegraphed to the Board of Trade to allow me to sign the agreement, but received no reply. The ship being ready for sea, another Mate had to be engaged. Can I claim any recompense for the delay in not supplying me with a certificate? It is said that on application it would be sent within 10 days. Twenty-three days were occupied in the process, as I did not get my certificate until the 26th. Having a wife and three children depending on me for support, the loss of my situation, with no prospect of getting another, makes my case very hard indeed." Blyth, Oct. 2, 1877. R. E. HARRISON.

[Under Section 139 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, it is provided that, in case of the loss of a certificate without fault on the part of the holder thereof, the Board of Trade shall cause a copy of the record to be made out and delivered to the applicant. No specific time is mentioned in the Act for the delivery of the attested copy, and our Correspondent would have no remedy against the Crown.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

[A certificate of competency in the Foreign Trade entitles the holder to go to sea in Home Trade passenger ships(Sec. 137, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854); but a certificate of service only for the Foreign Trade would not enable its holder to take command of coasting passenger vessels. If, however, our Correspondent served as Master of a Home Trade passenger ship before Jan. 1, 1854, he is entitled to a certificate for Home Trade passenger ships-(Sec. 135).]

COASTING TRADE CERTIFICATES. SIR,-Are Shipmasters whose certificates have been suspended, resulting from a Board of Trade Inquiry, allowed to take charge of vessels in the Home and (or) Coasting Trade? Whitehaven, March 25, 1876. AGENT.

[The Masters of vessels in the Coasting Trade are not required to possess certificates unless the ships they command carry passengers, and therefore there is no law to prevent a Master whose certificate has been suspended taking charge of a coaster.]

INDIAN CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY.

SIR, I have a certificate of competency as Master issued at Singapore in 1871. Can I take command of a British ship from England, by the new Act passed June 27, 1876, for the Bengal Presidency?-Yours, &c.,

Cardiff, July 3, 1876. WM. NARBETT, Shipmaster. [The certificates are only available for the Possessions for which they are granted. A Singapore certificate would not entitle a Master to take a ship from England to Ports in Bengal.]

INDIAN SHIPMASTER'S CERTIFICATE. SIR,-1st. Suppose a Shipmaster, holding an Indian certificate of competency, buys a vessel here, intended for the Indian Coasting Trade, can he command her by clearing out of London and assuming all the rights and responsibilities of a Captain, as if holding a London certificate? 2nd. If not, suppose the vessel loads for a foreign Port on the way to India (say Lisbon), or for one of our Colonies (say Cape Town), will he at either place (both being out of the jurisdiction of Great Britain) be legally eligible to assume command of his vessel under his Indian certificate?

London, April 27, 1876.

INDIAN EMPRESS.

[1st. The Third Part of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, does not apply to ships registered in any British Possession, and employed in trading to any place or places situated in such Possession. If, therefore, the vessel is not registered in a British Possession, she cannot be cleared out unless the Master holds a Board of Trade certificate, or a certificate acknowledged by Order in Council. 2nd. To obtain exemption, the vessel would have to be registered in India and then the certificate would be available; but, as certificates are granted at Bombay, Calcutta, and the Straits Settlements, a question might arise as to their legality in each Presidency. The ship must be sent out to India in order to be registered under the Indian Merchant Shipping Act.]

APPEAL FROM COURT OF INQUIRY. SIR,-In your issue of the 11th inst. I see an account of the result of the Inquiry held at Malta respecting the stranding of the Arethusa (s), and I am surprised to find such strong terms of censure used by the Court. As regards the light, I brought witnesses to prove that it was bearing west, or nearly so, when the Captain left the deck. It is also stated that I altered the course. I admit I had a doubt that the ship was drawing too near the land, and for greater safety, as I thought, I hauled her off, with the intention of going below to call the Captain, but, unfortunately, while in the act of doing so the ship struck. I had no knowledge of the reef being there, having no experience in that locality. Hence I do not consider I disobeyed the Captain's orders. as

66

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

the last words he said to me before he went below were, Keep her N. by W.; that will take you all clear; when you see the other light"-meaning St. Elmo-" slow the engines, and call me at 4 o'clock." Can I appeal for a fresh trial, or would it be any use to petition the Board of Trade for a certificate of a lower grade for the time? It is mentioned in the Official Report that my certificate had been renewed, which might lead people to believe it was through some former fault of mine, but it was through being lost with the ship's papers when I was wrecked in the barque A. O. A., of London, in the year 1872. D. W.

London, Sept. 12, 1877.

[There would be no appeal to a Court of Law; and as to a new trial, it is very doubtful whether the Board of Trade would consent to reopen the Inquiry. We would advise an application to the Board of Trade under Par. IV. of Sec. 23 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, for a certificate of a lower grade.]

AUSTRALIAN COURTS OF INQUIRY.

SIR,-A ship nearing her destination from London slightly touched on a reef, without in the least stopping her way, and made no water whatever. The Master, satisfied that no mischief had been done, chartered immediately on arrival to load a cargo for home, and made no report of having touched, because he feared it might affect the charter, which was a profitable one. When loaded and ready for sea one of the hands, whose wife lived at the Port, wanted his discharge, and on this being refused, ran away and made a report to Lloyd's Agent, who ordered the ship back, had her discharged and put on the slip, when it was found (as the Master surmised) that the damage was very slight, the ship as sound as ever, and able to make her voyage-she being two and a half years old at the time. The Underwriters, however, were very angry at the neglect of the Master to report at first, and he therefore, yielding to the Owner's representation, gave up the ship on the understanding that he should have her again as soon as she should reach London. The Master then took passage for himself, his wife, and his two children in a homeward-bound ship, and was on the point of sailing, when intimation was given him that the Marine Board had ordered an Inquiry and required him to be present. Feeling that it was an unjustifiable step on the part of a Colonial Board, and also convinced that he had little to fear, he determined not to stop; but, on the advice of a friend, he gave up his certificate, fully expecting to find it waiting for him on his reaching London. In his absence, when he had no one there to defend him, the Board suspended his certificate for a period of two years, at the end of which time it was returned to him without anything endorsed upon it, but you need not be told how serious an injury it has done him as a Master. Circumstances that have recently occurred revive the impression he has always had, that not only did the Marine Board unnecessarily order an Inquiry after it was quite certain no material damage had taken place, but, what is far more important to him, that they never had the power to suspend his certificate, and are responsible for the damages he has sustained by their wrongful suspension of it. The Master went out again as a passenger, and applied for the return of his certificate. It had, however, been sent to England. He then asked for a certificate to enable him to go as Master or Chief Mate, and finally they gave him a certificate to go as Chief Mate; but this was only after he had put the matter in the hands of a lawyer. Was not this an admission that they had exceeded their powers in suspending the certificate for two years? 1. Has the Marine Bard in Australia power to hold such an Inquiry? 2. Does power to suspend a Master's certificate reside in such Board? 3. If not, what should the Captain do to recover damages? -Yours, &c., CHARLES H. HARVEY.

London, Jan. 26, 1877.

[1. Governors of Colonies can put Marine Boards in motion to hold Inquiries. 2. The Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria Courts have power to suspend certincates issued in the Colonies or by the Board of Trade in London; but up to November last the Marine Courts of South Australia had no power to deal with certificates issued in

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

England. (See leading articles in Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Sept. 30, Oct. 4, and Dec. 5, 1876.) 3. The Master appears to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court by surrendering his certificate. His proper course would have been to have excepted to the jurisdiction, or to have submitted to the proceedings under protest. On his return to England he should have taken steps to right himself. We fear it is now too late to take proceedings with any chance of success.]

CONSULAR OR NAVAL COURTS.

SIR,-Whilst lying in the Port of Huelva I gave certain of my crew permission to go on shore for the purpose of buying provisions. One of them, a Fireman, declined receiving any money the night previous, stating that he could not get any provisions on Sunday morning, and chose rather to go on Monday morning, to which, of course, I made no objection. At 7.30 on Sunday morning, when the others who had permission were going ashore, the Fireman came aft and desired to go too, stating that he wanted to go to Church. Now, there is no service at that time in the morning, and the man having a black eye, the result of the previous Sunday's escapade in Lisbon, refused to let him go. Thereupon he commenced to make use of the most abusive and disgusting language, calling me by every opprobrious epithet he could think of. Now, if I had consulted my own inclinations, and had had the accommodation on beard, I should have immediately put him in irons and confined him, in which, as the ship was in Port, you will, no doubt, say I should have acted wrongly, for the reason that there was a Consul in the place to whom I could have applied. This was my thought, and after enduring all kinds of vituperation and abuse, I went on shore to obtain the assistance of the Consul, never doubting for a moment that I should obtain it. I found out the Consul's clerk, and proceeded to the Consulate; but the Consul said he was ill and could not do anything. I never saw him, but this was reported to me by his clerk, who accompanied me on board my ship, and not until the Fireman had been talked to for an hour and a-half could he be persuaded to behave himself, still using the most violent and insubordinate language, and expressing his intention not to cease until he was allowed to go on shore. About 11 A.M. he became quiet, and the clerk left the ship. On Monday morning the man was allowed to go on shore, as he stated he wished to see the Consul, having a complaint to make about the forecastle. He returned on board about 1.30 P.M. and went to his work. I again waited on the Consul, and, imagine my surprise on finding an elderly Spaniard, who could not speak one word of English, installed as a British Vice-Consul in a Port frequented by upwards of a thousand British ships per annum, nine tenths of which are steamers. To all my representations (conducted through the medium of an interpreter) I could obtain no further satisfaction than a shrug of the shoulders, and departed from the Consulate very much disgusted. On Wednesday morning the Fireman refused duty, and recommenced his conduct of Sunday. I went and reported this to the Consul, and requested that the man might be arrested, as he was in a state of open mutiny; but the Consul declined to do anything. On returning on board at 1.30 P.M. I was informed that the man had returned from the Consul's, and, finding by this time that he had it all his own way, he threw the slides belonging to the forecastle scuttle overboard (for which he hoped to get discharged). As I have said before, I should certainly have confined the man, but, unfortunately, there was not a place in the ship where I should have been justified in confining a man; so, for the second time that day, I appealed to the Consul, and called upon him to have the man arrested and summon a Naval Court to try him, for opine it is for cases like this that the Act of Parliament contemplates the summoning of a Naval Court. However, as I anticipated, the only satisfaction I could obtain was shrugs of the shoulders and gesticulations à la mode Espagnole. Now, as the local authorities will not arrest an Englishman, unless he offends against the laws of the country, without an order from the Consul, I found myself without any remedy at all unless I took the law into my own hands and imprisoned him on board the ship. I determined if possible to get him on board, and punish him when I got to England. On Thursday I

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

notified to the Consul that the man was ashore without leave, and a deserter from the ship, and requested him to have him conveyed on board. This he agreed to do, but the ship sailed the next morning and the man was not brought on board. I enclose extracts from the official log for your inspection, from which you will see that the Consul has appended a certificate stating that he has inquired into the subject of my complaint, and from various witnesses, as well as from the man's own confession, he finds that the man did make use of the most violent and insubordinate language towards me. British Shipping suffers quite sufficient in Spanish Ports from the Spanish Authorities without our delegating to Spaniards who cannot speak English the task of looking after the manifold and important interests which are inseparably connected with such a large fleet of British ships as visit the Port of Huelva every year. Was I not justified in expecting that the Consul would interfere? And, further, was not the above a case for a Naval Court? If not, on what has a Shipmaster to rely in a foreign Port to maintain discipline and good order in his ship?-Yours, & C., J. W. BUCKLEY, Master of the Salisbury (s).

Hull, March 6, 1877. [Whenever a complaint which appears to a Consu'ar Officer to require immediate investigation is made by the Master of any British ship, a Naval Court may be summoned. -(Section 260, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) A discretionary power is left to the Consul, and it would therefore rest with him to determine whether it was a case requiring to be heard before a Naval Court, or that might be decided on the arrival of the ship in England. It would appear that the Consul certified that he had inquired into the complaint, and found that, by the evidence of the Master of the Shotton (s) and the Master of the Muncaster (s), and the statements of the Master, Mates, Engineers, Cook, and Steward of the Salisbury (s), as also the offender's own confession, the insubordinate Fireman "did make use of the most foul and abusive expressions towards the Master." The Consul could have called a Court, and in the interest of those who do their duty on shipboard, and for the protection of Masters, an Inquiry should have been instituted. As to the neglect of the Consul in not sending the man on board, the facts should be represented to the Foreign Office.]

ATTENDANCE AT COURT.

SIR, I was subpoenaed on the 25th of January to appear in London on a collision case on the 2nd of February. I left Shields on the night of the 1st of February, and was in London until the evening of the 3rd, upon which day the witnesses on our side were heard. All our witnesses received their pay, viz. 17. 1s. per day, but me, and I charged them professional pay, but the clerk said that I had better send them my account up from Shields as he did not think he had money enough to pay me. My arrangements for the management of my own business had to be made shortly after the date of the subpoena, and as I am Manager aud Engineer for a Company of tugs, such arrangements could not be made in a day. I attended also one day on board their vessel at Shields to give them my statement and a drawing of the collision. I also wrote to the Owners of the vessel saying that I would be at no loss financially through my attendance to the subpoena, and received an answer saying that I should not be.-Yours, &c., A SUBSCRIBER. South Shields, Feb. 14, 1877.

[Our Correspondent is entitled to payment for four days' attendance, viz. one in court, two for travelling, and one day on board the vessel in harbour, at the rate of one guinea per day, as also for his railway fare and hotel expenses.]

SURVEYORS' FEES.

SIR,-The Board of Trade Surveyor recently paid my vessel a visit at an Irish Port, and suggested a small alteration, which was complied with. Ile charged me, fee and

SIR,-In your reply to my inquiry you say the fees are recoverable as Salvage. In the case referred to the ship's register was given up to the Collector of H.M.'s Customs by order of the Board of Trade as security for the repairs being executed. The Shipbuilder got an order from the Admiralty Court for the sale of the vessel to pay the amount of his bill for these repairs, and, after the sale took place, the old register was given up by the Collector of H.M.'s Customs and a new one granted to the purchaser. Now, in all cases of Salvage the parties having claims against the vessel lodge their claim in the Admiralty Court when the ship is advertised for sale. If any Salvors should neglect this at the time, do you consider they could arrest the vessel six months subsequent to the transfer by order of the Court? The Board of Trade did not put in their claim, and, having given up possession of the old certificate of registry, it seems an extraordinary stretch of the Salvage clause to endeavour to compel the new Owner to pay a debt contracted by the previous Owner of the vessel. There has been gross neglect on the part of the Board of Trade in not sending in their account; and I cannot see how, either in law or justice, they can enforce such a claim.-Yours, &c., SHIPOWNER.

Newcastle, Jan. 13, 1877.

[By a provision of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act, 1873, the costs of detention and survey were made recoverable as Salvage, and this provision has been re-enacted in the Act of last year, the object being obviously to give the Board of Trade as to these charges a remedy against the ship and against the Owner. It is a well known rule of Maritime Law that a Maritime lien is extinguished by a sale of the Res, made under the authority of the Court of Admiralty, though it would be otherwise if the sale was extra-judicial and to a third party without notice.-(The Saracen, P. C., and the Mellona.) The Board of Trade's lien as Salvorssupposing that lien to exist under the Statute-would be extinguished by a sale by order of the Court, though, if the ship was under detention by the Board at the time of sale, it might be a question whether the Court would not, under the circumstances, reopen the sale. As our Correspondent puts the case, however, the lien on the ship would appear to be gone, though the Owner would still be liable personally for the costs of survey and detention.]

EXPENSES OF PROSECUTION.

SIR,-If a Sailor deserts his ship, and is imprisoned for the offence, is the Master liable to be charged with the expense of the prosecution? and, if so, can the Master dispose of anything in the ship belonging to the Sailor to reimburse him for his outlay? If he cannot do so, it would induce the Master not to prosecute, to avoid incurring expense.Yours, &c., A BRITISH SAILOR.

Rye, Sept. 26, 1876.

[Whenever a Seaman has been convicted of any offence, the Court hearing the case may direct a part of the wages, not exceeding 31., to be applied in reimbursing any costs properly incurred by the Master in procuring the conviction. (Section 251, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) The Master of a ship cannot legally dispose of a deserter's clothing and effects to repay himself without an order from a Court.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

BOARD OF TRADE AND CLUB SURVEY. SIR,-I am the Owner of a small vessel that has been under repair and had Club inspection, and she was repaired to their satisfaction. Can the Board of Trade stop my vessel or compel me to do more; or what is my remedy with them ?Yours, &c., A VICTIM.

Dec. 14, 1876.

[The report of a Club Surveyor is not binding on the Board of Trade if, on inspection, a vessel is found to be unseaworthy.]

JURISDICTION IN WAGES CASE.

SIR, Is there any summary mode of recovering wages earned at sea (other than under the Merchant Shipping Act), in which the order of the Magistrate is final and without appeal, and in which the penalty for non-compliance with such order is imprisonment?-Yours, &c., MUSLIM. Feb. 7, 1877.

[Our Correspondent might proceed on the Admiralty side of the County Court, and, in the event of an order of the Court not being obeyed, the Judge might order the attachment of defendant.]

OFFICIAL INQUIRIES AND WITNESSES'
EXPENSES.

SIR, I was serving on board a steamer as First Engineer. Our articles of agreement were all signed, and ship cleared by the Customs Authorities, when I was served with a subpoena, at the instance of the Board of Trade, to attend and give evidence at an Inquiry respecting a case of collision. I attended and gave evidence as required, but in the meantime my ship sailed, and I am in a state of enforced idleness until its return. Can I compel the Board of Trade to pay my salary until the return of my ship, seeing I was in no way responsible for the collision, neither could any charge be brought against me in connection with it? If the law gives the Board of Trade the power to take whoever they choose out of a ship's officers without remunerating them, I would point out the great hardship they thus entail upon their unwilling subjects. Men who, as a rule, have only their labour to depend on for their maintenance, are compelled to sacrifice 201. or 301., or perhaps 40l., in wages through causes with which they have nothing whatever to do, and cannot possibly avoid. A SUFFERER. Hartlepool, Oct. 15, 1877.

[Our Correspondent could not compel the Board of Trade to pay his wages until the return of the steamer to England, if the Inquiry has terminated before that event. Receivers of Wreck or Superintendents of Mercantile Marine Offices are desired to report to the Board of Trade on any case where a larger rate than the ordinary scale of remuneration might be recommended; and we would advise a reference to the Receiver or, if necessary, to the Board of Trade.]

LIABILITY OF OWNER FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS. SIR,-In your leaders of Feb. 16 and Dec. 27, 1875, I understand you to say that, by common law, an Owner's liability is unlimited in the event of a ship being unseaworthy at the time of her loss, although the vessel may have been abroad and out of his supervision for some time, and the fault, if any, has been that of his Captain or Agents. Is not this overridden by the Acts of 1854 and 1862; and in damage arising to either ship or goods without his privity or fault, the liability is limited to 81. or 15l. per register ton, even though the ship is unseaworthy at the time of the loss or damage to the ship and goods? To put a case: Suppose a Captain leaves a foreign Port with a very valuable cargo, and the ship overladen-which, of course, means being unseaworthy, a circumstance with which the Owner is wholly unacquainted-is his (the Owner's) liability limited to 8. or 15l. per ton register, or is it unlimited? N. S. Sunderland, May 19, 1876.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

[Section 54 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, enacts that " the Owners of any ship, whether British or foreign, shall not, where certain events occur without their actual fault or privity," be liable beyond certain limits. Then follows the limiting of the liability to 81. per ton to loss or damage of goods or ships, and to 15l. per ton to loss of life or personal injury. If, therefore, a vessel was made unseaworthy by the Master, as distinguished from a Charter to load a given quantity of goods, without the fault or privity of the Owner, the liability would be limited in accordance with the Act.]

LIMITED LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS.

SIR, Where a vessel has been held liable for colliding with and sinking another, is it on the net or gross register tonnage of the ship that has been in fault that the 87. or 15l. per ton (as the case may apply) are computed in accordance with the Statute of Liability, and are fractions of tons counted as whole tons? Is this Statute applied alike to both sailing ships and steamers as regards computing their tonnage, and, if not, wherein is it differently applied?Yours, &c.,

Belfast, Aug. 15, 1876.

LEX.

[The registered tonnage of sailing ships and the gross tonnage of steamers are assessed-in the latter case without deduction on account of engine-room. Fractions of tons are not taken. A part counts as a whole ton.]

SURVEY ON TRANSFER.

SIR,-Can I sell a ship of mine, now discharging_on the Continent, to a foreigner without first getting an English Board of Trade certificate ?-Yours, &c., ENQUIRER. Liverpool, Jan. 12, 1877.

[Section 36 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and Section 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, do not apply to vessels sold to foreigners in foreign Ports. The law of the State where the ship is to be registered would govern the transfer. Some States require a certificate of seaworthiness before they admit them to their registers. Belgium, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Columbia, Brazil, Peru, Chili, the Argentine Confederation, Venezuela, and Costa Rica are the States which have decided on the adoption of this policy.]

[Under Section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the Board of Trade are empowered to appoint Surveyors or Inspectors; and, under Sec. 15 any Inspector " may go on board any ship, and may inspect the same, or any part thereof, or any of the machinery, boats, equipments, or articles on board thereof to which the provisions of this Act apply, not unnecessarily detaining or delaying her from proceeding on any voyage." The subject is specially treated in a leading article in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette, Nov. 11, 1876.]

PASSENGERS IN UNLICENSED STEAMERS. SIR,-1st. A British steamer traded between England and the Black Sea Ports, but was not licensed to carry passengers. Would the Master of such a steamer be liable to a penalty for carrying passengers from any of the Black Sea Ports to Constantinople or Malta? 2nd. If the above should be an offence, would the Master or Owners be liable, and what would be the penalty?

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT.

[1st. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts witt respect to Surveys and Certificates of Passenger Steamships include "every British steamship carrying passengers to, ol from, or between any place or places in the United King dom."-(Section 303, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.) The "Passenger Act, 1855," Section 4, extends to every "passenger ship proceeding on any voyage from the United Kingdom to any place out of Europe, and not being within the Mediterranean Sea"; and by Clause 95, to "any voyage from any place within any British possession to any place whatever, where the distance exceeds 400 miles, or the duration of the voyage three days." A British steamer could therefore carry passengers between any two foreign Ports without being licensed by the Board of Trade, or from a foreign Port to, but not from Malta, without her Owner incurring any penalty. 2nd. If the Act has been evaded, the Master or Owner, whoever is in fault, is liable to the fines and penalties of the Acts.]

PASSENGER STEAMERS AND TUGBOATS.

SIR, I have read with great interest your excellent article in your issue of to-day referring to the case of the steamtug Fearless, and should like to ask a simple question upon the same subject, which is of very great importance to us Masters. In cases of distress, when a vessel is in danger of sinking, and the Crew or passengers are compelled to abandon her, in what position would a Tugmaster be placed should he, as an act of humanity, rescue them and land them at a place of safety?-Yours, &c., A TUGMASTER.

London, Sept. 20, 1876.

66

[The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council having decided that to constitute a person a "passenger" within the meaning of Section 379 of the Merchant Shipping Act, a fare must be paid or agreed upon, it follows that if the Master of a tugboat were to agree with the Captain of a vessel in distress to convey his Crew on shore for a certain consideration, that would bring the vessel within the Statute, and make her, for the purposes of the Act, a passenger steamer." It would rest, however, with the Board of Trade to direct a prosecution, and we feel assured that no proceedings would be taken against the Master of a tug for rescuing a shipwrecked Crew or Seamen from a vessel in a sinking state. The case as put, however, might be regarded as one of Life Salvage, in which case it would be discretionary with the Board of Trade to award remuneration in the event of no consideration having been received.]