Page 72
2.122
representative consulted me on this matter and 1 gave him
the formal advice that his company should consult their own interests but that it should be understood that His Majesty'ɛ
Government did not admit that the actions of a British
subject, or institution, in any way prejudiced their rights of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Mr Carter was
at first anxious to be able to give his principals the
somewhat more positive assurance that we should consider the
company's proposed course of action right and proper in the circumstances, but I explained to him that I could not go beyond what I had said as it was necessary for His Majesty's Government to preserve complete freedom in this matter. Mr Carter readily understood the position.
4.
law.
There exists the possibility (no doubt a very remote one) that a British subject, acting in the dual capacity of representative of a company registered under the Insurance Business Law and agent for the British controlling organisation, might bring himself into conflict with English
This point did not however prompt Mr Carter's enquiry: he was merely desirous of ensuring, as far as possible, that his company were not likely to cause embarras- sment to His Majesty's Government over a question of principle. 5. In practice there is no alternative assuming that the company is to function here to acquiescence in the demand of the authorities and it seems probable that insistence on an obligation of compliance is intended less ae tilt against extra-territorial privilege than as a normal
provision
Page 72
Page 72
Page 72
Page 72