A
10.0
not appear to be any of the policy of His Majesty's
to attack private property, except in the case of poods at where the liability to seizure is recognised by international 153 1&W. Similarly it hamnot bom the policy of His Majesty.
tovarment to attack the trade of enemy subjects by direct
state action except where such trade is a source of strength to the enemy in the present struggle. This is the principle
which underlies the various enactments dealing with the sub-
joet er trading with the enemy, Seizure by British merchanta of an opportunity of capturing ferman trade by ordinary sommer
cial means is a different matter and is a form of war on
comman trade to which no exception can be taken.
On the subject of your remarks regarding the
retention of the prisoners of war at Kowloon, I am to inform you that the fear of your demmittee as to the danger of the presence of the c is not shared by the responsible author. ition. Apparently, however, the prinsipal reason mirrested for the proposad removal of the prisoners is in order that it may be made impossible or difficult for German merchants to
It is hard te resume their business here after the war.
believe that the removal of the prisonera from Hongkong to another part of the Tapire sould have any such effect, and in any case I un to remind you that the expulsion and internment of the germans was decided upon by His Excellency as a mili.... tary measure. This moumire ngoessarily involved the winding
up of the affairs of the anexy subjects so expelled
od and the assumption of the custody of their property, but
erity,
The
E
it was not aimed at the destruction of norman trade. magnitude of the problema involved in this subjost, and the far reaching nature of the future effects of action taken néwi make it necessary to endeavour, as well as may be, to take ;, broad view and net to be guided by merely loanl or tamerały considerations. yon dong has in the past been a distributing
1