because the concession was
to them
given question of the obligatory clausce
before the question of
was raised, and it was
was a
accendingly held
Heat a new condition could not be intro.
·duced, the
it
lefon
was
graut having been once made:
however intended to insist
the condition in all future
cases.
Catton if it is dispensed with now, they will sofer back to the present
case as a
want to
infinitum.
3. The
precedent when they next
Cay
They argue
a live and so on
ad
Let
our
compliance
with these clauses be dispensed with
because tite Danish company
-a-
-a. wave not
quind to comply with them when they laid their cable from
Shanghai to Hongthong and 161 do
not
With them in
comply Asiatic System.
As to .a.
493
regard
to their
when the Danish comfa-
my laid their line, I gather the telegraphic convention
of 1875
had
not been made, and briously they could
not be called upon to adhere to
an agreement As to -6.
which was not in existence.
The General Post Office latter
states distinctly that the Danish company do adhere to the convcation, This letter states that they
adhere
ed to their European
to it
only in regard System of
if
an al
statement
is considered
the latter is
treating the Fasten
argument for treating
company exceptionally, it might be well
to
refer to the G7.0. and find out
how far it is corect.
It seems to me
=
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.