ყვ
Maelwo" ad
prctad tenolie ni 99
foems r
srit of
፡፡
to a meit
ORJ
"ל -
GII to
-
:
1939,93
Vinner of ankstil one leg.any,100
to
NTASMAS
Palit [eisi" to a ne ratagend
viz. vnectan 8
Vi
fem rating barten von devan
svince, not bid OJ ISWOC 19lederj
MDİRİ VƏ 226 bna
[91 Beauru-gi- 2m0 (ssian 00)
kat makanpro0 polymo? Tribreqgetroo
i. 75 ed paitalet 119jjem [Le
i༤. : svidorgaer odd to
To ad
V to Y
d to (5) ise (2)e -*its.
4
alicīna marifngstar drug redio 201 oz diramaldor zero di no
100 1 ham wied roinniman dana
and more out
to neita
**
Me ei muiRİYET
TERO SE Boenixud
enforcement of judicial orders made by the respective Courts.
In paragraph 10 of His Excellency's despetch, under consideration, he refers to the Wing On Company (Shanghai) Limited as to which it is said "such a compeny may be a subsidiary com- pany belonging to a bona fide Hongkong enterprise, and the terri- torial control here may be satisfactory".
Were the matter of jurisdiction now to be considered for the first time, it would be difficult to show that the territorial jurisdiction of Hongkong could be satisfactory, or even at all effective, over a company carrying on all its busi- ness in Chine, controlled by a Managing Director resident at Shanghai, and having its seel kept there.
The Order-in-Council of 1915 and the amending Order- in-Council of 1919 were made because it had not been found that the limited territorial jurisdiction of Hongkong was 'quite
satisfactory'.
Paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15 of Sir Reginald Stubbs' despatch deal with the political question as to whether it would not be in the interests of British prestige to allow of companies being incorporated as British which are not euch in fact: a chose jugée, I think, as regards British companies in China especially
shipowning companies.
Paragraph 13 of His Excellency's despatch mentione the British American Tobacco Co. (Chine) Ltd. as a Chine Company, partly British in character, who find it difficult, if not impos- sible, to displace or replace their American Manager. When this Company appealed to H. M. Minister at Peking on the 11th of February last, in view of the difficulty which they had in comply-i ing with Article 4 of the new Order-in-Council of 1919, for exemption from the provisions of the new Order-in-Council by way, as it was suggested, of licence authorising the employment of s non-British Manager, it was suggested that the company should appeal to H. M. Government for the making of a supplementary Order-in-Council, authorising the issue by H. M. Minister of licences to employ non-British Managers of Chine Companies, in
ca.Bes
: