422
further grievous wrong" by
large
mitigation of penalty. I should think
it Kwok, a Chong's interest therefore to
make up his mind quietely And I have
only to state in conclusion that the legal
right to confiraation the part of the
ou
Chinese Authorities, arises on the infringement
of the section already referred to
constitute the liability on the one
Chinese Gove that the vessel
is there by .
AND
fault of her ours.
ruch
Q-1
being brought
there by stress of weather, legitimate fear of
Pirates or other arcunstance which rendered
ber resort or entrance necessary to her safety
and that of those
Chinese Gove
are ut
on board
But the
in the first sistance the
Judges of the sufficiency and value of the
To
hand,
proof advanced -
are alone
and the right to wiflict the penalty on
the other, proof of two facts requisite. 10th that the Port in which
the vessel is found is a non.
Treaty
Fort
2nd that the vessel is actually
The illegality of the
urthur its luunits.
Act of
Nesort
and entrance is liable to
be rebutted by proof satisfactory of the
Chinese
of the Gove acts unfairly or
fairly or improperly
in the exercise of its Indgment, it is their competent for the Gove to whom the party.
whose property the confiscated ship is, owes
allegiance, to remonstrate if it see fit and
intervene
action or otherurse
by Diplomatic action
for the ends of Justice -
This
to
adorsed,
the legal
aud
equitable bearing
of