A.—l_

24

judges it expedient, and must make if so directed by the Minister. A Court of investigation is composed of a Magistrate or two Justices sitting as a Court of summary jurisdiction, with the Assessors. As, under the Merchant Shipping Act, the Assessors form part of the Court, and must either sign the report or state in writing their reason for dissent (section 235, (8). A Court of investigation has power to deal with certificates, and exercises those powers in the same manner as a Court of investigation in the United Kingdom (section 238, (1), (b) ), but it cannot suspend or cancel a certificate, unless at least one out of the two Assessors concurs in the finding of the Court. In addition, however, to Courts of formal investigation, the following authorities or tribunals are authorised under the provisions of the Bill to suspend or cancel certificates in the following cases: (1.) The Governor, if it is shown that the holder is convicted of any offence (section 238, (1), (a)), following section 244 of New Zealand Act, 1877. (2.) A Court of summary jurisdiction holding an inquiry under this Act into the conduct of a certificated officer, if it finds that he is incompetent, or has been guilty of any gross act of misconduct, drunkenness, or tyranny, or that he has failed to render such assistance to any ship in distress, or in case of collision to give such information as he is required by the Act (section 238, (1), (c)). (3.) The Supreme Court, when under the powers given bv the Bill the holder of the certificate is superseded or removed by the Court (section 238, (1), (d)). The authority of the colonial Courts to make inquiries and to deal with officers' certificates arises as above mentioned under section 478 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Under that section it will be noticed only a court or other tribunal is authorised to deal with certificates, and then only in certain cases after inquiry held as directed' by the colonial Act. It is, therefore, difficult to see how any colonial Legislature can validly empower the Governor of the colony, as section 238, (1), (a) purports to do, without Imperial sanction, to deal with certificates granted under the Imperial Act, and such provision is probably ultra vires. The Court of summary jurisdiction authorised under section 238, (1), (c), to deal with certificates is, broadly speaking, in accordance with section 478 of the Merchant Shipping Act, but it is to be noticed that the Merchant Shipping Act only authorises colonial courts to make inquiries and deal with certificates where a shipping casualty as defined by that Act occurs. Under the Bill, however, a Court of summary jurisdiction is apparently authorised to inquire into cases of misconduct, whether such misconduct has resulted in a shipping casualty or not. Under section 240 of the Bill the Supreme Court is authorised to remove the master of any ship within the jurisdiction of the court, if such removal is necessary. Unless the Supreme Court has an admiralty jurisdiction this is hardly in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, section 472 of which confers such powers only ou the Court of Admiralty in British possessions. Clause 238, (1), (d), moreover, which empowers the Supreme Court in cases where it exercises its power of removal of the master to cancel or suspend would appear to be plainly ultra vires, because, as has been before pointed out, only the court holding the inquiry under section 478 of the Merchant Shipping Act can validly deal with an officer's certificate, and the Supreme Court is not, in removing the master, holding such inquiry under that section, and does not therefore appear to be within the authority provided by the Merchant Shipping Act. Section 242, empowering the Governor to reissue the certificate of any officer which has been cancelled or suspended, is also of questionable validity. If the certificate has been validly suspended or cancelled in accordance with the authority of the Imperial Act, it would appear that it is only by similar authority that such certificate can be reissued. The Merchant Shipping Act contains no such enabling power. Section 243 provides that the Minister may order in certain cases a rehearing of the inquiry. This, substituting the Minister for the Board of Trade, is identical with section 475, (1), of the Merchant Shipping Act. But it is to be observed that under section 478, (6), of the Merchant Shipping Act the Board of Trade has power to order the rehearing of a colonial inquiry. It would therefore appear that either the Governor or the Board of Trade may order such a rehearing. Of course the right of appeal to the High Court of Justice in England, given by section 478, (6), of the Merchant Shipping Act, is not affected by the Bill. Parts IX. and X. do not call for remark. Part XI. This part deals with the liability of shipowners. Clauses 293 and 300 contain probably the most important provisions in the Bill from the point of view of the British shipowner, introducing as they do provisions very similar to those contained in the Harter Act of the United States of America.

New Zealand Act. Harter Act. Section 293.—1f the owner of any ship Section 3.—That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in New Zealand exercises due diligence any port in the United States of America shall to make the ship in all respects seaworthy and exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in properly manned, equipped and supplied, neither all respects seaworthy and properly manned, the ship, her owners, charterers, or agent shall equipped, and supplied., neither the vessel, her become or be held responsible for damage or loss owner or owners, agent or charterers shall beresulting from faults or errors in navigation, or come or be held responsible for damage or loss in the management of the ship, nor shall the resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in ship, her owners, charterers, agent, or master be the management of the said vessel, nor shall the held liable for losses arising from dangers of the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, sea or other navigable waters, acts of God, or or master be held liable for losses arising from public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality or dangers of the sea or other navigable waters, vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent package, or seizure under legal process, or for defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or

Haetbb Act. Section 3. —That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent or charterers shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of the said vessel, nor shall the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, or master be held liable for losses arising from dangers of the sea or other navigable waters, acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or