551
i
K
(3).
If,
particular source provided that the terms offered
are not worse than those obtainable elsewhere.
as is Majesty's Government contend, there is no
such reason, and the Chinese Government having
entered into such a contract proceed to conclude a
second one which violates the first, is not the
Government concerned entitled to intervene with the
Chinese Government for the protection of the rights
of its subjects? In the present case after most
careful scrutiny His Majesty's Government can see no legitimate objection to the preferential rights enjoyed by the Chinese National Wireless Company under their agreement. Any contract for the supply
of goods must imply a preference in favour of the
contractor in so far as he has secured a contract
over others; if all preference of this nature be
debarred commerce generally would be impossible.
The question is thus reduced to whether the preference which the United States Government com-
Vis plains of in this case amounts to a monopoly. Majesty's Government consider that it does not. In the ordinary sense a monopoly may be defined as & right by which one person or body becomes the
sole medium for marketing a commodity in a
particular area. This definition is evidently inapplicable in the present case. The contract only covers purchases by the Chinese Government and does not apply to supplies required by other Governments, institutions or individuals who may operate wireless in China, and the Company's right
16