had no claim.
213
The Viceroy produces no sort of evidence that
the coal belonged to Chou Tung Sheng except apparently the verbal
testimony of Chou Tung Sheng's steward and it would be interesting
to know now such testimony was given and under what compulsion or
inducements.
As regards the Viceroy's other allegations
such as the fraudulent mortgaging of the coal on the part of Beng
Hua Chun to assist Chou Tung Sheng there would appear to be no
evidence whatever proffered - and it needs a great stretch of
imagination to believe that in January, 1905, it occurred to Chou
Tung Sheng to mortgage this one particular property in another
man's name in order to meet possible subsequent discovery of al-
-leged defalcations from the Chinese Government and this is the
less worthy of consideration when it is a fact that during the
summer of 1905 Chou Tung Sheng enjoyed the distinction of being
appointed Chinese Minister to a foreign power. He could hardly
have been apprehensive of ruin.
With regard to the Viceroy's despatch of
23rd. ultimo we would again point out that a statament by Wong Chi
Au can hardly be considered as conclusive or any evidence.
As the mortgage was registered and the coal
handed over to Messrs. Shewan, Tomes and Company, the Viceroy's
statement that the mortgage was secretly effected falls to the
ground.
owner is undoubted
Tbat Peng Hua Chun represented himself að
but we maintain that he did not ao so fraudu-
-lently and it is impossible to imagine that Chou Tung Sheng should.
have wished to put forward Feng Hua Chun as the owner of the coal
to prevent its possible seizure at some later date when he had a
large quantity of other property in Canton and in hongkong.
The recent attachments of Chou Tung Sheng's
property