200 
CHAPTER XVI. 
ship plying between Calcutta and the Far East, and compensation 
is refused, his dependants must prosecute the claim in Great Britain. 
This difficulty has been to some extent overcome by an arrangement 
in which practically all the shipping companies employing Indian 
lascars have co-operated. Under this arrangement, the shipowner 
and the seaman, at the time of signing the articles, enter into an 
additional article of agreement by which, in the event of accidents, 
compensation in accordance with the Indian Act can be claimed by 
seamen who do not prosecute claims elsewhere, and the Commissioners 
under the Indian Act are accepted as arbitrators in the event of disputes. 
On the whole, this arrangement appears to have worked smoothly but 
it cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory. In the first place, it is 
apparently within the option of the shipowner to refuse to enter into 
the agreement. In the second place, according to our information the 
agreement does not give the dependants a legal claim, although employers 
have not taken advantage of this loophole. Finally, the proceed- 
ings of Commissioners are not proceedings under the Indian Act, and 
various safeguards in the Act and Rules, such as the provisions relating 
to appeals. agreements, etc., are inapplicable. 
Further Protection for Seamen, 
It is not possible, by means of the agreement, to place a seaman 
in precisely the same position as if he was included in the Indian Act ; but 
certain defects in the present system can be removed. We recommend 
that steps be taken to ensure that dependants are capable of enforcing 
the agreement. We also consider that steps should be taken to ensure 
that all shipowners engaging Indian seamen shall enter into the agreement. 
We understand that the Indian Government has power to insist upon 
this. The only point to consider is the propriety of exercising compulsion 
50 long as there is a possibility of a double claim, .e., a claim under the 
agreement and a subsequent claim in Britain or elsewhere under the law 
applicable to the ship. Perhaps there is no practical force in this objec- 
tion, for it may be assumed that Indian seamen and their dependants 
in India would ordinarily be quite unable to pursue claims in Britain 
or elsewhere, and even if they did, any amount already paid would 
presumably be set off against the claim by the British or other court. 
But we may suggest that before making the agreement compulsory, 
Government might ascertain whether, in fact, there have been any 
double claims, and whether the danger of double recovery is a real one 
in practice. The extension of the agreement will not be completely equi- 
valent to bringing Indian seamen under the Indian Act, and Indian sea- 
men are naturally anxious that this Act should be extended to them while 
serving on any ship. But it isa general principle of international law that, 
on a ship belonging to a particular country, the law applicable while on the 
high seas is the law of that country and those who embark, whether as 
seamen or passengers, on foreign ships go outside the protection of their 
own laws for the time being. This principle can, we understand, be 
modified by reciprocal arrangements between the countries concerned. 
In the present case the country principally concerned is (Great Britain