214
property by the Vicercy are reported to total $2,600,000 in all
and this excludes any Hongkong properties. With this huge field
available is it likely that Chou Tung Sheng would have singled out
the one comparatively insignificant property to mortgage in an
assumed name ? We contend that the argument advanced by the Vice-
-roy is unworthy of consideration.
We confidently submit that as the ccal was
Agents
in the possession of Messrs. Shewan, Tomes and Company
for the Bank in Canton the Viceroy's action in seizing the coel
was an arbitrary and uniasfui proceeding and that the curden of
proof rests on him to prove his case before the British Consui
the bank being mortgagees in possession.
It will be observed that the Viceroy makes a
aumber of irrelevant statements to cover up what he must know to be:
improper the forcible seizure of coal in the possession of
British subjects.
With regard to the Viceroy's last statement
it was in error first stated oy the representative of Messrs.
Shewan, fomes and Company in Canton that the dect was $80,000 out
this was corrected as once and the Bank are fully prepared to
prove the bona fides of the mortgage and the actual amount due the
thereon.
We again submit that it is for the Viceroy
to put his claim for the coal before the British Consul in Canton
and prove his case.
We are etc.,
For the National bank of China, Limited,
(sd.) G. G. Moxon,
Managing Director.