|
the Company.
With regard to this, see the enclos-
-
As
ures in Mr. Butler's letter. The enquiry into the Company's affairs appears to have been satisfactory except possibly on two points see the marked passages on pages 3 and 4 of Miles & Company's Report. to the first marked passage, I do not think there is anything in this. The presentation after the out- break of war of a Bill drawn by an enemy may be a technical breach of the Proclamations, but it is merely a technical breach and has been committed I should think some hundreds of times without any official notice having been taken. I have spoken to Mr. Payne of the Companies Department about this
Mount particular
and he tells me that some question
was raised on the ground of the Company not having refunded the money to Messra. Ruffer, but having allowed it to stand to the credit of the enemy drawer
in their books. Mr. Payne said that the Company's
they
explanation was that considered it more in the
interests of this country to keep the money themselves than refund it to Ruffer, thereby possibly leaving
the enemy drawer in credit with Ruffer to that extent.
Mr. Payne said he thought this explanation was, on the whole, sound commercially, if not legally.
With regard to the second marked passage, the action described here of course shows a readiness
on the part of the Company to trade with Germans in neutral countries; moreover, the fact that the original order which started the system of trading with Chile came through a firm in Copenhagen indicatán that the Head Office in Germany, Schmidt Trost & Co. was at the back of the whole proceeding. On the other
hand, Mr. Payne tells me that all orders received for shipments to the firm in neutral territory, including the order emanating from Copenhagen, were confirmed by
the
!
C
It does not g
thinks
Are
639
the firm in neutral territory before they were ex- pected and were paid by the firm in neutral territory. In these circumstances, the Board of Trade regarded this as a dealing with a branch in neutral territory, and as being legitimate within the terms of the Proclamations. On the whole, therefore, I think it possible to say that the dealings of this Company have not been unsatisfactory, and with considerable hesi- tation I would suggest that we might perhaps? send a telegram in the terms of the draft which I submit. You will observe from 56768 that the Company offers to pay the cost of the cable. I do not know how far that implies that we will send them a copy of any cables sent. If it does, we had better not accept the offer. Positio I should add that I asked Mr. Payne whether the desicion of this Company was likely to be affected by the Bill, which the Board of Trade are preparing,to make possible the liquidation under receivers of firms and Companies of enemy nationality or association in this country. Mr. Payne said he thought we could safely assume that a Company with this proportion only of enemy capital would not be affected by the new Bill.
It must, however, be admitted that the imminence of this Bill puts a further difficulty in the way. The Bill has
to go through Parliament, and efforts may be made to extend it. None the less, I should say that it is morally certain, firstly, that no Company which has not a majority of enemy capital in it will be wound up, and, secondly, that capital owned by naturalised persons
of enemy origin will not be regarded as enemy capital.
Thirdly. That there is nothing in the present
Case which would be taken as Anociation". "enemy