SS Kalibia v Wilson

Last updated

The Owners of the S.S. Kalibia v Alexander Wilson
Coat of arms of Australia (1908-1912).svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided30 March 1910
Citation(s) [1970] HCA 77, (1910) 11 CLR 689
Case history
Prior action(s)In re Wilson (1910) 27 WN (NSW) 73 per Gordon J
Appealed from Supreme Court (NSW)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins   JJ

SS Kalibia v Wilson, [1] was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

The Constitution

Section 51 of the Constitution provides that the Australian Parliament has the power to make laws with respect to:

(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States; [4]

Section 98 of the Constitution then provides that

The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State. [5]

The Parliament can also make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. [6]

The early drafts of the Constitution gave the Australian parliament power to make laws with respect to "navigation and shipping" as a separate head of power under section 51. In 1898 the drafting committee made two relevant changes, to remove shipping and navigation to section 98 and to make it a part of the trade and commerce power in section 51(1). It is not apparent from the debates why this was done, nor was there any apparent consideration as to the effect of the change. [7] [8] [3]

The Seamen's Compensation Act

The Seamen's Compensation Act was a uniform law that applied to all seamen on Australian registered ships and to Australian seamen on British and foreign ships engaged in the Australian coasting trade. The coasting trade was defined as carrying cargo from one port in Australia to another, even if those ports were in the same State. [9] [10] [11] Because the trade and commerce power is limited to overseas and inter-state trade, there needed to be some other head of federal power to support its validity in providing for intrastate trade. The Commonwealth argued this power was found in sections 76(iii) and 98 of the Constitution. [12]

The Facts

The Kalibia was a British flagged screw steamer (SS) owned by the Clyde Shipping Company of Glasgow, that in 1909 had been chartered to carry cargo from New York to Australia, offloading cargo at Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The first officer agreed to transport a small package from Adelaide to Brisbane that had been mistakenly offloaded from another cargo ship. It was alleged that the SS Kalibia had taken horses from Melbourne to Brisbane, but this was later agreed to be wrong.

In Melbourne the crew, described as Lascars, deserted the ship, complaining of being ill-treated and underfed. [13] On arrival in Sydney the men were charged with combining to disobey lawful commands and were sentenced to imprisonment for 6 weeks, being the time the vessel would be absent from Sydney, at the end of which they would be placed on the vessel for the homeward journey. [14]

The crew were replaced for the voyage to Brisbane by an Australia crew, including Alexander Wilson. Wilson was seriously injured on 29 April 1910 when he was knocked into the vessel's hold. [15] He applied to the Supreme Court of NSW for an order that the ship be detained until a security bond was paid to cover any compensation that might be awarded to Wilson. Justice Street made an order in the absence of the owners of the SS Kalibia (ex parte). The owners sought to have the order set aside however Justice Gordon refused, holding that there was some evidence that the ship was engaged in the coasting trade and whether this was correct was a matter to be determined at trial. If the ship was permitted to depart Australia without providing security then Wilson would have no recourse. [16] The security was subsequently set by consent at £500.

The High Court

Nature of the order

It was argued for Wilson that the order of Street J was "ministerial" rather than judicial and as such Gordon J had no jurisdiction to discharge the order and there was no appeal to the High Court. Griffith CJ was the only judge to deal with this argument in detail, holding that a power conferred upon a judicial officer was judicial unless there were "clear words to show that it was dictatorial and unappealable". It was an elementary rule of justice that a party affected by an ex-parte order could apply to have the order discharged.

The coasting trade

Wilson had been engaged in Australia on a British ship, the critical point for the success of his application was whether the Kalibia was engaged in the coasting trade which required loading cargo in one Australian port to be unloaded at another. The only thing taken on board in Australia was the small case carried by the first officer as a favour for a shipping agent. Griffith CJ held that the essence of trade was a contract of carriage made on behalf of the ship and the case was therefore not cargo. [1] : p. 696  Barton J similarly held that gratuitous carriage was not sufficient and that trading in this context connoted payment for freight. [1] : p. 700  O'Connor J held that the isolated transaction had no trace of trade or business and was not conducted with the authority of the owners. [1] : p. 706  Isaacs J also held that the captain had no apparent authority to engage in the coasting trade. [1] : p. 711 

The Act was unconstitutional

The court's finding that the Kalibia was not engaged in the coasting trade meant it was unnecessary to decide the constitutional validity of the Act, and the Court would not normally do so. [17] On this occasion however each of the judges felt it was appropriate to express their opinion on the validity of the Act. albeit Higgins J did so with considerable reservation. One objection was that compensation for seamen did not fall within trade and commerce. None of the judges determined this objection. Each of the judges held that by including all coasting trade in Australia, including intrastate trade, the Act went beyond the Commonwealth power. Section 98 of the constitution explained the meaning of "trade and commence" and did not remove the need for such trade to be "with other countries, and among the States". There are echoes of the reserved powers doctrine in the judgments of Griffiths CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ however their judgments were not based on it. Isaacs and Higgins JJ, who steadfastly rejected the reserved powers doctrine, similarly found that there was no constitutional power to regulate shipping and navigation within the limits of a State.

Where the judges differed was in applying the test from the decided cases, [18] [19] whether the invalid provisions could be severed. Griffith CJ held that the Act intended to apply to all ships engaged in the coasting trade without distinction and that the provisions could not therefore be severed. [1] : p. 699  Barton J held that the definition of coasting trade was unambiguous and it was not the role of the Court to re-write the definition to make it constitutional. [1] : p. 702  O'Connor J held that the provisions of the Act could not be separated, such that the entire Act was invalid. [1] : p. 708  Isaacs J held that Parliament had made no distinction between inter-State and intra-State trade and that the enactment was therefore invalid. [1] : p. 715 

Higgins J dissented on the question of severability. His Honour had no doubt the Parliament intended the Act to apply to the coasting trade within the limits of a State, but that if Parliament had understood the limits of its power, the Act would have been limited to inter-State seamen. [1] : pp. 721–2 

s76(iii)

The Commonwealth argued that the Act was a valid exercise of power under section 76(iii) of the Constitution, asserting that "the Parliament may make laws in any matter of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction". That is that the power to give the High Court jurisdiction with respect to admiralty and maritime matters implied a power on the part of the Commonwealth tho legislate as to those matters. Griffith CJ described the argument as quite untenable. [1] : p. 699  Barton J held that this was a matter in which the over-riding power on the subject was the Parliament of the United Kingdom. [1] : pp. 703–4  Isaacs J noted that section 76 related solely to Parliament conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court. His Honour distinguished between the interpretation and enforcement of admiralty and maritime law and the alteration of that law. [1] : p. 715 

Aftermath

The effect of the decision was that the Australian Parliament did not have power to alter maritime law or to deal with maritime affairs other than by reliance upon the heads of power in s 51, importantly (but not solely) the trade and commerce power. [20] The decision has never been over-turned by the High Court, however doubts have been expressed about the legitimacy of the High Court's decision, with Higgins J describing the views on the reach of s 76(iii) expressed by Griffiths CJ, Barton and Isaacs JJ as obiter. [21] More recently Justice Gummow, then sitting in the Federal Court, noted that Barton J's reasoning that Australia was not, in 1910, a "separated nation of independent sovereignty in its relation to the United Kingdom" no longer represented the modern constitutional position. [22]

A replacement Seamen's Compensation Act was passed in 1911, which was limited in its application to ships engaged in trade and commerce with other countries or among the States. [23] The 1911 Act was challenged in Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm on the basis that compensation for seamen did not fall within trade and commerce. The majority, Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Powers and Rich JJ (Griffith CJ & Barton J dissenting) held that the Act was a valid exercise of the trade and commerce power. [24]

In the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth) the Parliament sought to overcome the question of severability by the inclusion of a provision that the Act was to be "construed subject to the Constitution, and so as not to exceed the legislative power of the Commonwealth" [25] a provision that, in 1930, would be added to the Acts Interpretation Act. [26] There are limitations to the effectiveness of such an approach. [27]

The Australian Law Reform Commission was asked to review all aspects of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia and chapter 5 of its report looked at both the history of the jurisdiction in Australia and made various recommendations for change, including the use of other constitutional heads of power as the foundation for Australian legislation. The report noted that the High Court had held in the Sea and Submerged lands case, [28] that the territory of the States stopped at the low-water mark or at the line closing a bay, such that the external affairs power would permit the Parliament to make laws about ships voyaging from one port in Australia to another, even if those ports were in the same State. [2] The Parliament subsequently enacted the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 which relied upon additional heads of power, including the corporations power. [29] In 2014 a Full Court of the Federal Court held that this meant the Act was effective in regulating the rights of employees of a trading corporation who worked on a vessel that was working in an area confined to the seas off Western Australia. The Court held it was unnecessary to decide the complex questions, arising from the decision in SS Kalibia v Wilson around whether the employer's business dealings were such that the ship was engaged in overseas or interstate trade or commerce. [20]

The referendums

The Labor Party twice held referendums to consider proposed changes to the Constitution to overcome the decision of the High Court by removing the limitation on the trade and commerce power to be with other countries or among the States. Neither referendum was successful.

Results [30]
YearQuestion NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas States in favour Voters in favourResult
1911 (4) Trade and Commerce 36.11%38.64%43.75%38.07%54.86%42.11%1:539.42%Not carried
1913 (6) Trade and Commerce 46.96%49.12%54.34%51.32%52.86%45.16%3:349.38%Not carried

Writs were issued for a further referendum to be held on 11 December 1915 to cover substantially the same questions as were rejected in 1911 and 1913, [31] however the referendum was cancelled and the writs withdrawn. [32]

The SS Kalibia

On 30 November 1917, the SS Kalibia was in the Atlantic Ocean 29 nautical miles (54 km) south west of The Lizard, Cornwall ( 49°31′N5°32′W / 49.517°N 5.533°W / 49.517; -5.533 ) when it was torpedoed and sunk by the German submarine SM UB-80 with the loss of 25 of her crew. [33]

Related Research Articles

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1937 Australian referendum (Aviation)</span>

The Constitution Alteration (Aviation) Bill 1936, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to extend the Commonwealth legislative power in respect to air navigation and aircraft. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 6 March 1937.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

<i>R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Burgess; Ex parte Henry, is a High Court of Australia case where the majority took a broad view of the external affairs power in the Constitution but held that the interstate trade and commerce power delineated trade and commerce within a state, rejecting an argument that the power extended to activities that were commingled with interstate activities. The court set aside a conviction for breach of the regulations as they went further than was necessary to carry out and give effect to the convention.

<i>Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2)</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Airlines of New South Wales Pty Ltd v New South Wales , was a High Court of Australia case about the validity of Commonwealth regulations about intrastate air navigation. Although the Commonwealth has the power to regulate interstate air navigation under s 51(i) of the Constitution, it can only regulate intrastate air navigation under the implied incidental power attached to that head of power. It was held that intrastate air navigation can be regulated to the extent that it provides for the safety of, or prevention of physical interference with, interstate or foreign air navigation.

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales, was a Privy Council decision that affirmed the High Court of Australia's decision in Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth, promoting the theory of "individual rights" to ensure freedom of interstate trade and commerce. The case dealt primarily with Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<i>Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Bank of New South Wales v The Commonwealth, also known as the Bank Nationalisation Case, is a decision of the High Court of Australia that dealt with the constitutional requirements for property to be acquired on "just terms", and for interstate trade and commerce to be free. The High Court applied an 'individual rights' theory to the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that lasted until 1988, when it was overturned in favour a 'free trade' interpretation in Cole v Whitfield.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)</span> Special electoral jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Challenges regarding the validity of State elections are heard by the Supreme Court of that State as the State's Court of Disputed Returns.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (1915)

New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

<i>Attorney-General for NSW v Brewery Employees Union of NSW</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW, commonly known as the Union Label case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 8 August 1908. The case was significant in relation to the endorsement by the majority of the court of the reserved powers doctrine and as the first case to consider the scope of the power of the Commonwealth regarding trade marks. It also addressed who could challenge a law as unconstitutional. There was a strong division in the Court between the original members, Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ and the two newly appointed justices, Isaacs and Higgins JJ.

<i>Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead</i> Australian constitutional law case

Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead is a leading decision by the High Court of Australia that dealt with two issues under the Australian Constitution, the identification and extent of judicial power that is vested in the courts and the corporations power of the Parliament. The Court unanimously held that the inquiry provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906 were not an exercise of judicial power. The judgement of Griffith CJ in particular continues to be cited in relation to its examination of the identification and extent of judicial power. The court, however, divided on the proper approach to the corporations power. The majority, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, strongly influenced by the now discredited doctrine of reserved State powers, held that the corporations power was to be construed narrowly because the trade and commerce power did not include intrastate trade and commerce. While the reserved powers doctrine was unambiguously rejected by the High Court in 1920, Huddart, Parker was not formally overruled by the High Court until Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1971).

<i>Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association, known as the Railway Servants Case, is an early High Court of Australia case that held that employees of State railways could not be part of an interstate industrial dispute under the conciliation and arbitration power, applying the doctrine of "implied inter-governmental immunities". The doctrine was emphatically rejected by the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case, and in 1930 the High Court upheld the validity of an award binding on state railway authorities.

<i>R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte BHP, was an early decision of the High Court of Australia concerning the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in which the High Court controversially, granted prohibition against the Arbitration Court to prevent it from enforcing aspects of an industrial award. The High Court held that the Arbitration Court had gone beyond settling the dispute that had been submitted to it and in doing so had made a jurisdictional error.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

<i>Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd</i> Landmark Australian court case

Federated Sawmill Employees Association v James Moore & Sons Pty Ltd, commonly known as the Woodworkers case or the Sawmillers case was a decision of the High Court of Australia in 1909 concerning the question whether the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration could make an award that was inconsistent with a State wages board determination. The High Court was divided 2:2 and thus the decision of the Chief Justice prevailed, in what is sometimes described as a statutory majority. Griffith CJ, O'Connor J agreeing, held that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with the minimum wages fixed by a Wages Board under a State law.

<i>Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead was the last of a series of cases in which members of a cartel, described as the "Coal Vend" were prosecuted under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The majority of the High Court held that the investigation power was spent once a prosecution had commenced and that under the Act, a corporation could not be required to answer questions. While the decision was based on the wording of the specific legislation, its ongoing significance is its foundation for the requirement that the government act as a model litigant.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SS Kalibia v Wilson [1970] HCA 77 , (1910) 11 CLR 689 , High Court.
  2. 1 2 "Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction". Australian Law Reform Commission.
  3. 1 2 Allsop, James. "Australian Admiralty and Maritime Law – sources and future directions" (PDF). (2007) 26 University of Queensland Law Journal 179.
  4. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament.
  5. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 98 Trade and commerce includes navigation and State railways.
  6. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 76 Additional original jurisdiction.
  7. ↑ "Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 3 March 1898".
  8. ↑ "Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, Melbourne, 16 March 1898".
  9. ↑ Seamen's Compensation Act 1909 (Cth)
  10. ↑ Edward Millen,  Vice-President of the Executive Council (21 July 1909). "Seamen's Compensation Bill" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: Senate. pp. 1405–1413.
  11. ↑ Paddy Glynn,  Attorney-General (3 December 1909). "Seamen's Compensation Bill" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 6930–6931.
  12. ↑ The argument referred to Moore, W H (1910). The constitution of the commonwealth of Australia (2nd ed.). p.  560.
  13. ↑ "Kalibia's Lascars refuse to rejoin vessel". The Argus . 16 April 1910 – via National Library of Australia.
  14. ↑ "Trouble on the Kalibia". The Sydney Morning Herald . 26 April 1910 – via National Library of Australia.
  15. ↑ "Accident to a Seaman". The Brisbane Courier . 2 May 1910 – via National Library of Australia.
  16. ↑ In re Wilson (1910) 27 WN (NSW) 73, Supreme Court (NSW).
  17. ↑ Union Label case [1908] HCA 64 , (1908) 6 CLR 469 , High Court at pp. 491–492 per Griffith CJ and pp. 553–554 per Isaacs J.
  18. ↑ Railway servants case [1906] HCA 94 , (1906) 4 CLR 488 , High Court.
  19. ↑ Whybrows case (No 2) [1910] HCA 33 , (1910) 11 CLR 1 , High Court.
  20. 1 2 Samson Maritime Pty Ltd v Aucote [2014] FCAFC 182 at [34], (2014) 229 FCR 125, Federal Court (Full Court).
  21. ↑ R v Turner; Ex parte Marine Board of Hobart [1927] HCA 15 , (1927) 39 CLR 411 at pp 447–8, High Court.
  22. ↑ Re Empire Shipping Company Inc v the Owners of the Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" [1991] FCA 499 , (1991) 32 FCR 78 at pp 86–7, Federal Court.
  23. ↑ Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 (Cth)
  24. ↑ Australian Steamships Ltd v Malcolm [1914] FCA 73 , (1914) 19 CLR 298 , High Court.
  25. ↑ Navigation Act 1912 (Cth)
  26. ↑ Acts Interpretation Act (Cth) s 15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution.
  27. ↑ "Drafting Direction No. 3.1 Constitutional law issues" (PDF). Office of Parliamentary Counsel (Cth). January 2017.
  28. ↑ NSW v Commonwealth ('Seas and Submerged Lands case) [1975] HCA 58 , (1975) 135 CLR 337, High Court.
  29. ↑ Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth)
  30. ↑ Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 – Referendums and Plebiscites – Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia.
  31. ↑ Amendment of Constitution, Federal referendums, the case for and against. Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth. 16 September 1915. pp. 27–28.
  32. ↑ Referendum (Constitution Alteration) (No 2) 1915 (Cth)
  33. ↑ "British merchant ships lost to enemy action Part 3 of 3 – September 1917 – November 1918 in date order". Naval History. Retrieved 6 May 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.