323
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
#ELLE CO885/25
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
134
I also refer here to 50070, on which we asked whether something could not
may be done to introduce British competition with Messrs. Smith Mackenzie in Zanzibar. Perhaps we might now ask Mr. Worthington whether he has been able to arrange anything in this respect.
NYASALAND.
(1)_Deuss & Company. This company is in liquidation. It had two branches. one at Blantyre, one at Port Herald, also a branch at Chinde and a head office at Hamburg. Full particulars are given in sub-enclosure 1 to enclosure 1 in 38242. It is there stated that the manager at Blantyre controls the two British East African branches, while the Chinde branch is the local head office. Cotton goods, etc., are imported from Hamburg, and sugar and salt from Portuguese East Africa, local products being consigned to Hamburg for sale. The Nyasaland trade is almost entirely confined to wholesale supply transactions with the Indian traders. Balance sheets of the Blantyre and Port Herald branches are given as enclosures A1 and A2 in the sub-enclosure just mentioned. These seem to show, in the case of the Blantyre branch, a balance of available assets over non-enemy liabilities of £10,966 16s. 8d. (This figure is arrived at by striking out of the liabilities the debts to the Chinde branch, the Hamburg office, and the suspense account.) The assets include £1,550 for property, presumably real estate. The Port Herald branch balance sheet shows assets amounting to £8,659 98. 11d., including a debt of £2,561 108. 5d. from the Chinde branch, which will probably be irrecoverable. The liabilities, excluding that to the Hamburg office, are only about £320. There is, therefore, a large surplus. The assets contain an item of £860 6s. 2d. in respect of property.
With regard to this firm's land holdings, see enclosure K in this sub-enclosure, which shows that they hold five acres of freehold, one acre on which the firm's store is situated under a lease expiring on the 1st of July, and nine perches under a yearly tenancy. These holdings, in so far as they are saleable, can now be disposed of.
(2) Michahelles & Company.—This firm has come to an end, having been trans- ferred under Order of Court to Mr. Storey, formerly one of the partners, and a British subject.
(3) Hermann Werth. See paragraph 6 of 38242, where the Governor stated that this trader serves a public want which could not conveniently be otherwise met, and indicates that it is not thought desirable in any way to restrict his trade. Full particulars of this firm are given in enclosure 3 (see paragraph 1 of sub-enclosure), where it is stated that Mr. Werth's business is mainly that of butcher, dairyman, and mineral water salesman to the European population, and that he combines with this the business of storekeeper for the sale of calico and hoes to the natives, and that he also exports hides and other local produce, apparently to the English market. Investigations have not disclosed anything undesirable in Mr. Werth's transactions since the outbreak of war, and in 12828/15 he is stated to have been in the Protectorate for twenty-two years. He appears to do his European business with Philippi & Company, who are a Hamburg firm with branches in Portuguese East Africa and German East Africa. See enclosures A1 and A2, from which it also appears that Mr. Werth holds considerable real estate in the Protectorate. It is for consideration whether Mr. Werth's business should be liquidated, but, having regard to the view expressed by the Governor, this is probably undesirable. His business is evidently of local importance, and though he does some European business, it is not in any sense an international business, nor likely to be of political influence.
12827 shows also that some enemy subjects hold land in the Protectorate, see onclosure, paragraphs 13, 14, and 16. It has, I think, been decided on a West Indian paper not to treat planters and estate owners as commercial firms for the purpose of liquidation, and I presume that this policy will also be adopted in East
Africa.
UGANDA PROTECTORATE,
The only enemy firm is Hansing & Company. On the 24th of March, 1915 (see 14044), the Governor reported that this firm was closing business, and that its licence to trade had been withdrawn. By this time it has probably disappeared altogether. From Mr. Bottomley's minute on 3522/16 it appears that this firm has a cotton ginnery, which has been taken over by the Government and leased succesively to two British firms. This can presumably now be sold.
With regard to the trading establishment, it is probably unnecessary to take any further action
135
unless there 18 really anything to be disposed of.
We had better ask for a report
as to the present position of the firm, and as to what has been done with its real estate, if any, and goodwill.
On the above facts we have to consider :—
(1) Whether there is any objection to applying the recommendations of the Committee to the East Africa Protectorates, and whether the application should be subject to any special limitations in any particular case; and
(2) Whether we should apply the recommendations made by the Law Officers in connexion with the West African liquidations (see the summary of their opinion at the end of the memorandum).
With regard to (1). I imagine that the decision will be to apply the Com- mittee's recommendations. It will be seen from the detailed statement above that there will probably be no need to apply the new system to the East African Trading Company, that it should not be applied to the business of Max Klein, and perhaps we should tell the Governor not to apply it to the case of Messrs. Schauer & Welter until we have consulted the Board of Trade. Their case cannot be urgent, as the hotel which they carried on is in the occupation of the military authorities. No special questions appear to arise in connexion with Zanzibar. As to Nyasaland, there seems no reason why we should not complete the liquidation of Deuss & Company; but it remains to be decided what is to be done with the busi- ness of Hermann Werth. As to Uganda, the necessary action is sufficiently indicated above. There remains to be mentioned the question of trade-marks (see 30405 and previous correspondence, from which it appears that the trade marks of Oswald & Company and Hansing & Company had in all probability a considerable value). Probably this value has now largely depreciated.
We are
in correspondence with the Patent Office about the instructions to be given to local Governments in connexion with the sale of trade-marks belonging to enemy firms the branches of which in British territory are being liquidated. In writing to East Africa we should warn them that further instructions are following on this subject, if we have not already heard from the Patent Office.
(2) As to the question whether we should apply the Law Officers' recommenda- tions. These may be summarized as follows:-
(a) That we should pay out of the assets of any branch in liquidation any debts due from the branch itself or from the head office or from another branch of the same firm.
(b) That neutral creditors should only be allowed to prove their debts after they have exhausted their remedies against the enemy firm in enemy territory.
(c) That where there are different branches of the same firm in different Protectorates on the coast, the assets of the various branches should be pooled (after payment of preferential claims in each case), if necessary, in order to make good out of the surplus assets of any branch showing a surplus the deficit of any branch showing a deficit.
With regard to these points, I think we should certainly adopt (a). The enemy firms here in question for the most part show large balances of assets, and there is no reason why firms like Matusch, Goldschmidt & Company (see 7254/16) and the Coventry Cycle Company (see 29761 and 31699/15) should not have their debts paid. We do not know how many debts of this kind exist or how many have been presented and refused, and I think if it is decided to apply this principle we should consult the Governor as to the desirability of advertising for claims in such terms as to make it plain that claims of this kind will be admitted.
to
As to (b), the information at our disposal does not enable us to say definitely whether there are any considerable number of neutral claims or not. As far as the East Africa Protectorate is concerned, 4147 refers in general terms throughout neutral firms domiciled in British territory, and in one case only to neutral territory, and there reference is to German firms in neutral territory, which need not be considered for the present purpose. So far as neutral firms in British or allied territory are concerned, it would be for consideration whether these should be treated as (a) neutrals or (b) British or allied. The test would, I think, be whether the position of the firms is such that they would be entitled, according to German law, to sue in Germany or not. If the former, then, according to the Law Officers' recommendation, their claims should be postponed. If the latter, I think their claims should be admitted. As to the