43
C. O.
60763
REC.
REGE DEC 16
Mo
53831
international law, be forfeited otherwise than by
decision of a frize Court.
With regard to the third paragrapa of your
letter under reply, Mr. Balfour is of opinion that goods
which are the property of a person or firm resident or
carrying on business in the British Empire and therefore
subject to British Jurisdiction, can, consistently with
international law, be forfeited under Section 11 of
Ordinance 22, if obtained from or destined for an enemy.
As already pointed out in the letter from this
Department of November 9th, the Ordinance is not
applicable in cases where there is reason to suspect
that the goods "are being directly or indirectly supplied
I in stile of the Goto
tion of 2,15 July
eung
to or for the use or benefit" of a firm on the Statutory
List, since such firms camot, in Mr. Balfour's view, be
treated as "enemy".
Mr. Balfour, nowever, sees no reason wily a
further ordinance should not be passed to deal with goods
thus destined for firms on the Statutory List, always
provided that power be not taken to forfeit goods not the
property of persons other than those subject to British
jurisdiction.
In reply to the further point dealt with in the
third paragrah of your letter, Mr. Balfour is of opinion
that the forfeiture procedure may be invoked in the case
of goods belonging to firms carrying on business in allied
territory provided that the snipment of the goods con-
stitutes an o.fence against the Trading with the Enemy laws
enforced/
J