396
August, 1894, seven days subsequent to the sinking of the Kow-shing. The Chinese Minister was informed in reply that his contention did not appear to Lord SALIS- -BURY to bear upon the case under discussion, but his lordship, after pointing out that it was impossible for Her Majesty's Govern ment to abandon the claim advanced by the Company, said they were willing to renew the offer already made, that the question should be referred to arbitration.
**
16
"
<<
"
|
}
June 9, 1900.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
the lethargy of Lord SALISBURY, took some of arbitration and instructed him to press months to reflect on his proposition until, at for a reply. This action at length brought length on the 30th June the Chairman of the Tsung-li Yamen to book, for on the 10th the Company again addressed a despatch December Lo FENG LUB, in a despatch to to the Foreign Office earnestly begging the Foreign Office, conveyed the willingness that steps might be taken to compel of his Government to submit the case to the immediate attention of the Chinese arbitration, but said he was still awaiting Government to the settlement of their their decision as to which of the three modes "just and moderate claim." After the of arbitration which Lord SALISBURY said lapse of more than a month, Mr. BERTIE would be agreeable to Her Majesty's Govern- was directed to inform the Company that the ment should be adopted. Having by this This weak concession to the Peking Go- Chinese Minister is still without instructions time become weary of Chinese contrivances vernment very naturally brought out a in regard to the proposal that the claim for delay, Lord SALISBURY telegraphed, in remonstrance from the Chairman of the should be referred to arbitration, but he reply to a wire from Sir CLAUDE MACDONALD Indo-China S. N. Company, and it is not expected to hear from the Tsung-li Yamen at to His Excellency to press the Chinese surprising to find the following passage in an early date. Lord SALISBURY'S patience Government to send instructions to Minister his reply to the above, dated 3rd February appears to have waned at last, for he Lo on the point as to the nature of tribunal. The Board of Directors observe, with much telegraphed to Mr. BAX IRONSIDE at Peking On the 19th December Mr. BERTIE, replying regret, that your Lordship has again offered on the 2nd August, and on the 6th idem in to Mr. MACANDREW's letter of the 17th "the Chinese Government the alternative of response that diplomatist wired that on the August, stated that the Chinese Government an arbitration. Some of their objections to previous day at an interview with the Tsung- had agreed to allow the case to be referred "this course were explained in my letter to li Yamen they informed him that they had to arbitration, and would communicate your lordship dated the 30th July, 1897, not yet decided on their reply to the shortly as to the mode of arbitration. This "and I sincerely trust that, as then pointed proposal, but would give one in a brings the correspondence to an end, but, in out, the refunding of the cost of the Kow- few days. Further telegraphing went on, the House of Commons, in reply to an inter- shing, as defined in the charter party- the Tsung-li Yamen trying first to gain time rogation by Mr. Moon on the 4th ultimo, it "190,000 dollars, at the then current ex- and then to shift responsibility on to the has been ascertained that the questions at change of 28. 2d. per dollar, equal to Chinese Minister in London, which Lord issue in this case have been referred to the £20,583 6s. 8d., and $15,000 for charter SALISBURY would not hear of so far as arbitration of an eminent foreign_jurist. 'money, stores, and coals, as in our state- Her Majesty's Government were concerned. Thus ends for the present the long and pitiful ment of the 6th September, 1895-£1,625, Meantime the Company were waxing im- story of a just and moderate claim made "with 7 per cent. interest since that date, patient and on the 14th August the Chair-upon a barbarous and conscienceless Govern- "will be excluded from the questions sub- man addressed a further despatch to the ment. There is assuredly no room for "mitted to arbitrators as being already Foreign Secretary protesting first against congratulation either to Her Majesty's fixed and settled by the agreement signed the prolonged delay in coming to a final Government or to the unfortunate Company by Lo FENG LUH, the present Chinese understanding with the Chinese Government, whose interests they have so ineffectively Minister, himself." The Chairman then and secondly against reference of the claim championed, upon this result, for the decision went on to recapitulate the facts with refer- to arbitration. The objections of the Board in the Delagoa Bay Railroad case is too ence to the sinking of the Kow-shing, showing to arbitration are repeated, and regret ex- fresh in our recollection to allow us to hope that there would have been no loss of life on pressed that other measures have not been much from such arbitration, Eminent board the steamer if the captain had been taken to obtain a satisfactory settlement, Mr. foreign jurists are far too prone to lean to permitted by the Chinese Military officers to MACANDREW Concludes this letter with the the side of any Government if opposed to proceed to a Japanese port, as he desired to following very pertinent remarks:- I may be that of Great Britain, and seem, moreover do, and that the first act of hostilities was "permitted, however, to observe, with reference to have a most inadequate appreciation of committed by a Chinese warship, in support "to arbitration, that if the decision should the value of time. of which a declaration signed by Mr. TAMPLIN, "be in favour of the Chinese Government, the chief officer, stating that he saw in the 'Her Majesty's Government will be in this wardroom of the Japanese warship Naniwa "position, that they will have to present an unexploded shell, fired by the Chinese "the claim to Japan, by whose officers the cruiser Tai-Yuen, which had passed"actual destruction of life and property was through the side of that vessel before a directly caused. It is not for a moment single shot was fired by the Japanese."to be supposed that British subjects are The whole circumstances of the case, how- ever, seem to us so plain and straightfor ward that it is difficult to understand what pretext there is for referring the matter to arbitration. Having once committed him. self to that course, however, the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs feels bound to justify his action, for on the 13th Febru- ary, when replying to the above letter, Mr. FRANCIS BERTIE writes:-"I am to in- "form you that the question whether the the Chinese Authorities are liable to pay "compensation in respect to the loss of the Kow-shing in the circumstances is the point on which the two Governments are at
<!
CE
Cá
66
"
4
+
"not to be indemnified by either one or the "uther Government for their loss under a "charter entered into in a time of peace and "in perfect good faith, and inflicted through the agency either of the Chinese or of the "Japanese officers as may eventually be de- termined. A Court of Law would no “doubt pronounce for payment of the claim
under the charter; but when foreign Gov- "ernments are the defendants the claims of "British subjects can only he upheld by the "active assistance of Her Majesty's Govern- "ment."
<
The pourparlers at Peking had been going on all the while, and on the 22nd August Mr. BAX IRONSIDE telegraphed to Lord SALISBURY that he had had another interview with the Tsung-li Yamen, and went on to remark: "Their Excellencies volubly denied any liability on the part of the Chinese Government for the loss of the vessel in 'question, but at the same time they requested more time to come to a decision as to whether they would agree to submit
(4
"
**
"
"issue, and could not therefore be withdrawn "from the consideration of the Arbitrator in the event of an agreement being arrived "at to deal with the case by arbitration." And he goes on to add:-"In view of the fact that the question to be decided is lar- gely one of the proper interpretation of the law of nations, and one on which different 'opinions may well be held by different
authorities. Lord SALISBURY maintains the case to arbitration or not." The the view that the case is a specially suit- capacity of the Chinese Government for "able one for settlement in this manner."
procrastinating is so well known that this Yet it is perfectly certain that a great wrong ancient device for evading their liability need has been done, for which the military officers excite no surprise; the only cause for astonish- placed by LI HUNG-CHANG on board the ment is to be found in the long-suffering Kow-shing were directly responsible by their patience of Lord SALISBURY. This oozed refusing to allow the captain to surrender, out finally on the 7th December last, when thus bringing destruction on the steamer his lordship telegraphed to Sir CLAUDE and death on many of the crew. Mean- MACDONALD that the Chinese Government time, the Chinese Minister, encouraged by had had ample time to consider the question
SUPREME COURT.
5th June.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. "
BEFORE SIR JOHN Carrington, KT., C.M.G. (CHIEF JUSTICE).
A PARTNERSHIP, CASE.
In this case Wong Shung Nin, of 42, Queen's Road West, was the plaintiff and Wong Tak Ip and others defendants. The claim was for a dissolution of partnership. With regard to the first defendant it was stated that he had not been a partner for some time and really ought not to be set down as a defendant.
Mr. Robinson (instructed by Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton) appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Messrs, Johnson, Stokes, and Master) for the defence.
Mr. Robinson read the pleadings. It was alleged in the petition that from February, 1895, to February, 1899, the plaintiff and the partner-ship as salt-fish dealers at 1 and 2, defendants carried on business together in co-
Salt Fish street, Hongkong; that the partner- ship, was a partnership at will determinable by reasonable notice; that the partnership was determined by the plaintiff on the 13th February, 1899; that the capital of such partnership was $14,000, of which the plain- tiff's share was $3,000; that it was agreed that the plaintiff should be appointed and should remain one of two salaried Managers; that he was so appointed, but that since the first of April 1898. the defendants had refused to admit the plain- tiff to any share in the management, and had not paid him any salary. The petition con- tained other allegations. With regard to the alle gation that the partnership was a partnership at will, the defendants in their answer denied that this was the case, and said that by the terms of the agreement the partnership could not be dissolved by any one partner except on certain conditions which had not been complied with by the plaintiff,