View report page

23
MEDICAL INSPECTION OF EMIGRANTS ON OUTWARD BOUND
VESSELS.
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
In February last I had to call attention to the provisions of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the medical inspection of emigrants, and to
the manner in which the Port Sanitary Authority is affected thereby.
Section 306 of the Act provides:—
1. For the medical inspection of all steerage passengers and crew,
when the services of a medical practitioner can be obtained.
2. That such inspection shall take place on board ship or on shore
before embarkation.
Section 307 provides :—
1. That if the emigration officer is satisfied that any person on board
or about to proceed is, by reason of sickness, unfit, or for that or other
reason in a condition likeyl to endanger the health or safety of the other
persons on board, the emigration officers shall (a) prohibit the embarkation
of any person, or (b) shall require him to be re-landed after
embarkation, and the master shall remove such person or persons.
2. That the master, owner, or charterer of the vessel be liable to a fine
not exceeding 100L. for any non-compliance with this section.
3. That any person embarking after contravention of this section
may be summarily removed and be liable to a fine not exceeding 40s.
for each day on board after prohibition.
4. That upon re-landing under this section the master shall pay to
each steerage passenger so re-landed, or if he be lodged and maintained on
any hulk or establishment under the superintendence of the Board of
Trade, then to the emigration officers at the port, subsistence money at
the rate of one shilling and sixpence per day until (a) he has been
re-embarked, (b) declines or neglects to proceed, or (c) until his passage
money has been returned.
This question came before your Committee in the years 1883-1884, when
these cases were landed at Gravesend, and the town authorities naturally
objected to cases of infectious disease being allowed to roam about within their
iurisdiction. Some correspondence ensued, and the result was that the Board