.0:
110 * $**
¤iu odtwsoiq,nodra),denersD-luenol a'wnej. Bil
DOL DEA rod woli to nutrieve?) and gorsilook ail of admoniiqmoo .10ɖng some inne.nobnu and to 1000 Auivunen Jianumið of Woron sud
.Y TOU
COPY.
From the Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, Lo P'an-hui,
To H. M. Consul-General.
17th. day of April, 1913.
495
.DINI NI Îing. (nost)
tuburąpel uoivnių od sonors lef
10movie gonsIlsort, sil. od 'nonefael, Jateno?-IvenoŬ
→ Dingh to IX .ok
.omnolom Seu noilgituset
.GrodBOLIK
.eded brs euus..
njieroï to pHOTING ONJ NOTE
.&I.A.VI exin)la
.of mezeier 10 santiqs125
Tedainil a'w veje si: oz bi
.81.9.01
Limestone.
The Commissioner of Foreign Affairs has the honour to
acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Jamieson's Memorandum of the 2nd.
instant and, after consultation with the Commissioner of Industries!
to reply as follows.
Mr. Jamieson states "that the issue by the late Imperial
Government of likin receipts and Customs permits to export cons-
-titutes irrefutable evidence that all limestone supplied to the
Green Island Company was shipped with their knowledge and consent
and that any action taken was not illegal nor irregular".
According to this argument, the possession of likin receipts and
export permits entirely legalises illicit quarrying and convey-
-ance of limestone or indeed any other action which is contrary
to the mining regulations. Such a contention is, the Comissioner
fears, unreasonable.
Again the Memorandum under acknowledgment states that in
Ch'en Tu Tu's proclamation the citation, without reprobation, of
the Canton Cement Works' petition implies an endorsement of its
proposals. This also is not the case, for it was unnecessary to reprobate the proposals put forward in the proclamation. The
proclamation made no mention of a prohibition against the export
of limestone nor was such prohibition ever made by our Government.
From this it is plain what Ch'en Tu Tu's intentions were.
*Commercial procedure" has already been explained by the
Commissioner in detail and the grounds on which Governor-General
Chou, under the Manchu Dynasty, closed down the Lao Ti Wan Quarry,
and his rescript on the case, have no connection with the question
at issue. These points, therefore, need no reply.
To sum up: this case is simply one of preventing crafty