The Comptroller-General of Customs has forwarded the following memorandum for advice:

The S.S. Karoola arrived at Melbourne from Sydney on July 14th 1913. The vessel was boarded in Hobson's Bay on arrival and cleared-a certificate of pra-tique was not issued.

The passengers who were booked to Melbourne left the ship in the ordinary way and dispersed to their various destinations.

On the next day, July 15th, a case of smallpox was discovered in the person of a through passenger booked for Adelaide.

Upon the discovery the vessel was ordered into quarantine under section 35.

The Victorian passengers were then collected and transported to the quarantine station. The ordering into quarantine of these passengers was not done specifically in each case, as following precedent, it was assumed that when the vessel was ordered into quar-antine, the Order covered all persons who were or had been passengers on the vessel.

The owners of the vessel now claim that they are not responsible for any expense in-curred in connection with the passengers booked for Victoria, who had completed their voyage and left the ship before the case was discovered.

The responsibility for expenses in connection with any vessel ordered into quarantine is defined by section 59.

In considering this question it must be remembered that every passenger was released from Sydney (a quarantine area proclaimed under section 13 (h)) under surveillance, and therefore section 59 (1) (d) might be considered to apply although the wording of the sec-tion might on the other hand be interpreted as applying only to persons released from a vessel which has been ordered into quarantine.

Another section in which responsibility for expenses of quarantine is allotted is section

62.

The point at issue is as follows:

Are the owners, agents, or master of a vessel responsible for the expenses incurred in quarantining passengers who have left the ship (having reached their destination) during the currency of a voyage during which the vessel is ordered into quarantine, but before the vessel has been ordered into quarantine?

The amount involved is approximately £. 500.

Section 59 of the Quarantine Act 1908-1912 provides that:

(1) The master, owner, and agent, of any vessel ordered into quarantine, or of any ves-sel from which any person is removed to perform quarantine, shall severally be re-sponsible for-

1. the removal of the passengers and crew to the quarantine station;

2. the care and maintenance of the passengers and crew while detained at the quar-antine station;

3. the conveyance of the passengers from the quarantine station to their ports of destination; and

4. the medical surveillance of persons released under quarantine surveillance,

and shall supply, to the satisfaction of the Minister, all such service, attendance, meals, and other things as are required for those purposes, including domestic and laundry ser-vice, medicines, medical comforts, nursing, and attendance for the sick.

The obligation cast on the owners of a vessel is when the vessel is ordered into quar-antine to be responsible for the care and maintenance of the passengers while detained at the quarantine station.

When a person has completed his voyage and has left the ship he is then no longer a passenger.

When the Karoola was ordered into quarantine she had been in port for more than twenty-four hours, and those persons who were booked for Melbourne, having completed the voyage and left the ship, were no longer passengers when the ship was ordered into quarantine.

In my opinion, the owners of the Karoola are not liable for the maintenance at the quarantine station of those persons who had landed at Melbourne after completing their voyage in that vessel.

[Vol.12,p.39]