'
November 19, 1896]
628th October fifteen men connected with the outbreak were sentenced to be shot.
NEWS VIA MADRID,
T
Madrid, 15th October. Marshal Blanco telegraphs that a Spanish outpost at Talisay having been attacked by the insurgents, he despatched a column of 400 men to assist the outpost; but the column was unable to out its way through the superior forces entrenched in strong positions, and had to fall back with a loss of two officers and sirteen men killed, one major, one subaltern, and twenty-one men wounded.
On hearing of this reverse Marshal Blanco sent two battalions, who succeeded in rescuing the garrison outpost, who made a dash through the insurgent lines.
The Marshal, in a later telegram, states that his object in moving forward was to assume the command in person in the province of Laguna, to seize promptly some strategic positions on the frontier of the provinces of Cavite and Catangas, and to check an advance of the in- surgents which might be dangerous in the populous districts of both provinces. The occu- pation of Talisay by the rebels obliged the Marshal to move towards Lipa and Catangas, with a view to stop the onward march of rebels; and he left two regiments to guard the lines from Tananan to Colomba. The Marshal con-
cludes by stating that he will not telegraph unimportant daily skirmishes, and that he has garrisoned Manila and Cavite with the European troops which had recently arrived.
The Government will immediately prepare and has telegraphed offering Marshal Blanco all the forces he may require. The intelligence has caused much sensation in Madrid.-Standard correspondent.
fast steamers to take out several thousand men,
St. Sebastian, 15th October. The Minister of State in attendance upon the Court to-day communicated to the Queen- Regent a telegram from Manila announcing that the mutiny of the soldiers of the disciplin. ary battalion in the island of Mindanao had been completely suppressed.-Reuter.
Madrid, 16th October. The unfavourable news received from the Philippine Islands yesterday has caused great anxiety here, which has been increased by later telegrams, confirming the report of the check sustained by the Spanish force. It was hoped that the troops already sent out would be suffi- cient to cope with the situation, but it is now regarded as possible that further reinforcements will be required.
The Correspondencia says the necessity of sending further reinforcements with the object of stamping out the insurrection is unanimously recognised.
The rising proves to be more completely organised than was supposed at first.
The Heraldo states that in consequence of yesterday's telegrams it has been decided to despatch further troops.-Reuter.
SPANISH CHARACTER AS DEFINED BY
THEMSELVES.
The following is an extract from a leading article in El Imparcial, reproduced in the Diario de Manila of 25th October, having curiously enough been allowed to pass the censorship:
To the brave woman, loving wife, and pure Aragonese by birth and blood who attempted to march in the attire of a soldier from Zaregossa to Cubs.
In my country there is a legend reading thus, applicable to this woman in the striped
uniform
"Do you wish to compare the pool to the sparkling fountain ?
"The sun rises and dries up the pool but the fountain remains for ever."
The fountain is the race and this, thank God, remains and will continue to remain in Spain, limpid and generous, gushing without ceasing, and flowing without contamination to clear away the evils caused by the mephitical emanations from the pool.
The pool... What is the pool but the nification of our purturbed politics, our rupt administration, the pernicious example high places, putrid leven which is fer- ng below, and the impunity with which the evil-minded boast, owing to the "apathy or
rdliness of the right-minded?
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
No, we must not despair, for the race remains, and the fountain; .but.
the sun of justice is tardy in rising to dry up the pool.
MARIANO DE CAVIA.
SUPREME COURT.
10th November..
IN ADMIRALTY JurisdICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR DR. Carrington (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
C
JOHANNES FRAHM v. 8. 8. NINGCHOW," AND
THEODORE RING AND OTHERS v. 8. 8. - NINGCHOW."
This was a motion by the defendant for the dismissal of both actions.
=
Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C., (instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys), appeared for the party moving, and the Hon. H. E. Pollock, Acting Attorney General, (instructed by Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Muster) represented the plaintiffs.
The arguments of counsel on both sides were heard on the 30th October and 4th November.
Tisthe
any vague or indefinite principles. present case a good deal of argument was ad dressed to me on both sides on this part of the motion; and Icould not help thinking that much of it bore rather on the question of the merits of the claim than on the question whether its attempted enforcement in these proceedings constituted such an abuse of the process of the Court as to justify the Court in summarily putting an end to the proceedings on the ground already mentioned. It is, I think, sufficient for me to express an opinion that the circumstances of this case are not such as to justify the Court in intervening, in the way suggested by the motion, between the plaintiff and the defendant; and it follows, therefore, that the motion must be refused on the first of the two grounds on which it was based. I proceed to consider the second of these grounds, viz., that a protest has been made by the representative in this colony· of the Chinese Government against the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in the case, and that the reasons upon which the protest is founded are sufficient to induce the Court to give effect to it. The rules which govern the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Jus. tice in England in dealing with cases where His Lordship read the following judgment: foreigners or foreign vessels are concerned-and In the first of these two actions the plaintiff these rules operate in this Court also—are thus seeks to recover by proceedings in rem against stated in Williams and Bruce's Admiralty the steamship Ningchow the sum of $1,533.32 Practice, 2nd ed., p. 200,"The Court of for his wages and disbursements as master of Admiralty, administering a part of the mari- the vessel, while in the second action the plain-time law of the world, possessed a competent tiffs seek to recover by similar proceedings jurisdiction to adjudicate in such cases, and for their wages as seamen on board the vessel.alty Division. At the same time the exercise against the same vessel the sum of $1,765.00 this jurisdiction is now vested in the Admir An appearance was entered in both actions by His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China as owner of the vessel, and also by Messrs. Bennertz & Co., of Shanghai, as charterers of the vessel. On the 28th October, 1896, the de- fendant, the Emperor of China, filed and served in each of the actions a notice of his intention to move the Court that the action be dismissed. An affidavit by Mr. H. M. Hillier, of the Imperial Maritime Customs of China, resident in Hongkong, was filed in support of the motion and a counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiff Frahm. With the consent of parties the two actions were consolidated for the purposes of the hearing of the motions. That hearing took place on the 30th October, 1896, and the 4th November, 1896. For the sake of convenience I propose to use the singular number, as if there were only one motion and one action. In accordance with the practice in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court, the notice of motion did not set forth the grounds on which it was founded. These grounds were, however, stated orally by Mr. Francis, counsel for the Emperor of China, at the hearing. They were two in number-1st, that the claim of the plaintiff is so manifestly untenable and vexations, that the bringing of it forward in this action amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court; and, 2ndly, that the Ningchow is a foreign vessel, being under the Chinese flag, that a protest has been made by the representative in this colony of the Chinese Government against the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in the case; and that the circumstances under which that pro- test has been made are such that the Court will give effect to it and refuse to adjudicate on the claim of the plaintiff. I will deal with these grounds in their order. With regard to the first of them, viz., that the plaintiff's claim is so manifestly untenable and vexations that the Court ought to decline to entertain it rid ought to dismiss the action as being brought in abuse of the process of the Court, there is no doubt that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to make an order of the kind asked for. But the principles which regulate the exercise of this jurisdiction are well established; and they show that the Court will make such an order only in a case in which it is clearly satisfied that the proceedings are frivolous and vexations. As was said by Black- burn, J., in Dawkins v. Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 502, this is “a juris- diction which in all cases should be very care- fully exercised by the Court." So also in Higgins v. Woodhall, 6 Times L. R. 1, Halsbury, L.C., said that" a judicial discretion must be used as to what proceedings are vexatious, and the Court must not prevent a suitor from exercising his undoubted rights on
of this jurisdiction is discretionary with the Court, and if the consent of the représenta- tive of the Government to which the vessel belongs is withheld, upon reasonable grounds being shown, the Court may de cline to exercise its authority; and where the Court has exercised this discretion, the Court of Appeal will refuse to overrule it, unless it has been exercised on wrong principles or wrongly or unfairly. In all cases, however, it is indispensable that notice of the intended pro- ceeding should be given in the first instance to the representative of the foreign Government, al- though the Court does not feel imperatively bound to act in accordance with the views that may be entertained by such representative. In cases of great hardship, where a vessel is sold under de- cree of the Court, and neither master not ma- riner left with any means of subsistence, the Court might proceed in face of the consul's protest." With regard to this notice, rule 30 (a.) of the Rules of Procedure for the Admiralty: Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court provides as follows" In an action for wages, the affidavit. [to lead warrant for arrest of the ship] aball also state the national character of the ship, and if the ship is foreign, that notice of the action has been served upon a consular officer of the State to which the ship belongs, if there is one resident in the colony." Applying these rules to the present case, three questions appear to arise, and upon the answers to be made to them the decision of the second part of the motion must turn. These questions are, 1st, is the steamship Ningchow a foreign vessel? 2ndly, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Mr. Hillier, the person making the protest against the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court, duly qualified as representative of the foreign Government to make the pro- test? and, 3rdly, if the second question is answered in the affirmative, are reasonable grounds shown for making the protest ! With regard to the first of these questions, it is not disputed that the steamship Ningchow is under the Chinese flag. With regard to the second question, it is admitted that there is no Chi- nese consul in Hongkong. It is clear, there fore, that Mr. Hillier is not a consular officer the Chinese Government within the meaning of rule 30 (a.) of the Rules of Procedure men- tioned above, and, consequently, “if notice of the institution of the action had not been served upon him, he would not. have been entitled to come in and object to the continuance of the action con= account of the omission to give such notice. as a matter of fact, he was served notice. The concluding – paragraph plaintiff Frahm's affidavit to lead warran arrest is in the following tern further make oath and say that notice