CO129-333 - Governor Nathan - 1906 [1-4] — Page 216

214

property by the Vicercy are reported to total $2,600,000 in all

and this excludes any Hongkong properties. With this huge field

available is it likely that Chou Tung Sheng would have singled out

the one comparatively insignificant property to mortgage in an

assumed name ? We contend that the argument advanced by the Vice-

-roy is unworthy of consideration.

We confidently submit that as the ccal was

Agents

in the possession of Messrs. Shewan, Tomes and Company

for the Bank in Canton the Viceroy's action in seizing the coel

was an arbitrary and uniasfui proceeding and that the curden of

proof rests on him to prove his case before the British Consui

the bank being mortgagees in possession.

It will be observed that the Viceroy makes a

aumber of irrelevant statements to cover up what he must know to be:

improper the forcible seizure of coal in the possession of

British subjects.

With regard to the Viceroy's last statement

it was in error first stated oy the representative of Messrs.

Shewan, fomes and Company in Canton that the dect was $80,000 out

this was corrected as once and the Bank are fully prepared to

prove the bona fides of the mortgage and the actual amount due the

thereon.

We again submit that it is for the Viceroy

to put his claim for the coal before the British Consul in Canton

and prove his case.

We are etc.,

For the National bank of China, Limited,

(sd.) G. G. Moxon,

Managing Director.