View report page

17
" ' effects' ; and, by the next section, 46, it is provided that ' the whole of the
" ' moneys which may have been paid by or on account of such passenger
" ' for his passage shall be refunded him.'
" This re-landing, coupled with the fact of the return of the passage-money,
" in my opinion nullifies any contract which might exist between the owner
" of a vessel and a passenger or emigrant, and that, in consequence, such
" owner is in no way liable for the maintenance in Hospital; and there are
" no circumstances which take the case out of the provisions of section 132
" of the Public Health Act, 1875, which makes a person in a Port Sanitary
" Hospital liable for his maintenance while there.
" While upon this subject, I may call the attention of your Committee to
" section 47 of the Passengers' Act Amendment Act, 1855, which provides
" that ' subsistence money shall be paid by the master of a passenger ship to
" ' any person so re-landing at the rate of One shilling and sixpence a day
" ' for each statute adult until he shall be re-embarked, or decline, or neglect
" ' to proceed, or until his passage-money, if recoverable under the previous
" ' section of the Act, be returned to him.'
" It might be, therefore, that if the passage-money is not returned to him,
" the passenger in Hospital, although even then primarily liable to the
" Port Sanitary Authority for his maintenance, would have power to recover
" One shilling and sixpence a day subsistence money from the owner of
" the vessel ; but this, of course, would only apply if the passage-money were
" not returned.
" I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
" Your most obedient Servant,
"H. HOMEWOOD CRAWFORD,
" City Solicitor.
" Guildhall, November 7th, 1888."
This is, from a public health point of view, a most satisfactory decision, as
it removes the only objection of shipowners to afford every possible facility in
dealing with such cases. Naturally, by the return of the passage-money, the
owner of the vessel will at once relieve himself of the liability, and, obviously,
in the case of an emigrant, it is not possible to recover the expense from the
patient himself.
We have made, therefore, one more step in the direction of free Hospital
treatment in cases of infectious disease. Here the patient is compulsorily
isolated for the public good, and it seems only just and logical that the
public should be called upon to pay for its own protection.