COPY.
Hon. Col. Secy..
Andrave 2
321
Opinion of the Attorney-General.
The declarations of Mr. Moxon, Managing
Director of the National Bank of China, Mr. Shewan, Mr. Gilman, and Sz A Chin establish the fact that at the time the coal was seized by the Viceroy in October, 1905, it was in the actual poss- -ession of the Bank through Agents paid for the purpose, and that it had so been in the Bank's possession since February, 1905, as Mortgagees under a Mortgage registered at the British Consulate at Canton, portions of such coal having been from time to time removed between February and October, 1905, under delivery orders issued by the Bank to its Agents.
In these circumstances the Bank is entitled
to the protection it claims.
The Viceroy cannot lawfully seize property
in the possession of a British subject without the intervention for that purpose of the British Court of Law established by the China and Corea Orders in Council 1904.
if in the present case the Viceroy disputes
the validity of the transaction under which the Bank claies the right to retain the absolute possession of the coal,or if he
claims any interest with the Bank in the coal, he must invoke the
assistance of the British Court to set aside the transaction
or otherwise determine the conflicting claims of himself and the
Bank.
The Viceroy should be required to withdraw forthwith the guard which he has unlawfully placed over property in the possession of a British subject, and submit his claim to
such property to the properly constituted legal tribunal which
under the Orders in Council has full jurisdiction to deal with the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.