Page 65 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

49
ARTICLE XXXI.
Tho terra “ nutivo " vessel applies to vessels fulfilling one of the following oonditions
1. It shall presonttho outward uppoaranoo of native build or rigging.
2. It shall bo manned by a crew of whom the Captain and the majority of the seamen
belong by origin to ono of die countries on tho coast of tbo Indian Ocean, the
Red Sea or tho Poisian Gulf.
ARTICLE XXXII.
Tho authorization to oarry tho flag of ono of the said powers shall in future only be
granted to suoh native vobscIs as shall satisfy at the samo timo the throe following condi­
tions
1. Fittor8-out or ownora of ships must bo either subjoota of or persons protcoted by the
power whoso flag they claim to carry.
2. They shall bo obligod to prove that thoy possess real estate situated in the district
of the authority to whom their application is addressed, or to supply a solvent
security as a guarantee of the payment of tbo finoo which might bo incurred.
*
ARTICLE XXXIII.
This authorization granted shall bo renewed every year. It can at any timo be suspended
or withdrawn by the authorities of the power whose colours the vessel carries.

(iii) Eight of vessels of Native States in India to fly the British flag under the
operations of tho Brussels Act.
227. The above quesition was first raised in 1888, and was finally deter­
mined after the Brussels Act had come into force. A clear idea of the position
of vessels owned by subjects of Native 8fcates is important in order to distinguish
the 6ame from that of the French flag-holders.
228. In 1888, in their letter No 1583, dated the 2nd March 1888, the
Bombay Government addressed the Gov­
Internal A„ July 18S8, Noa. 803—91.
ernment of India on the subject of the
rights and obligations of the owners and crews of vessels trading with foreign
countries, who are subjects of Native States iu subordinate alliance with Her
Majesty, and made the following suggestions ;—
(1) "The most obvious solution of the difficulty Beoms to bo tho distinct recognition
of vessels, belonging to the subjects of the maritime or other States io subordinate alliance
with Her Majesty, and plying beyond tho local limits of those States, as British vessels
which must be registered at a British port,f.
(2) “Io order to enable the Indian Government to provide Indian ships of Native States
with the requisite safeguards, it ought to be empowered to issue certificates, such as are issued
under Her Majesty’s Order in Council at Zanzibar, to tho owners of such ships, and this would
requiie fresh legislation ",
229. The Government of India’s reply (No. 2819-L, dated the 11th July
1888) pointed out that the questions discussed appeared to have been raised
only in connection with Kutch ships and Kutch subjects and added “ until His
Highness the Rao requests that Kutoh vessels may be brought under British
Indian law, it would seem to the Government of India undesirable to move in
the matter of their regist ration or to take measures with a view to bringing the
crews under British jurisdiction,”
230. In Government of India’s No. 1064-E., dated the 21st |May 1891,
the Bombay Government was asked for
Internal A., Jana 1891, Noa. 15—10.
their views as to the steps to be taken to
carry out the provisions of tho General Act of the Brussels Conference.
The Bombay Government’s reply No. 6304,
Internal A., October 1891, Hos. 18—29.
dated tho 8th July 1891, referred to
the 1888 correspondence and expressed an opinion “ that under Act 32 of the
General Act the British Government has no power to authorise a Kutch vessel
to carry the British flag, since the Kutoh owner ianot a protected person in the
diplomatic sense intonded by tho Aot.”
[Cd73FD]