CO129-413 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [8-10] — Page 32

I

es

Minute by the Attorney General.

Enclosure

2

-30

,80iìto retusupback

Grammo) anido dðvož

„Alel‚†Bugwa AJEL Znoxynol

yone floor wor

Ja 3TAX Jnebnoquɑrico 8 mort eldao beroenes À -:estate,nobrod,ynaqmoë dqsqzelet szuwadori adt od nietneit niatneit noisaeonco faidira befioimob emit kaurie)"

sesniff) siv undyniet aliude bool seiðitmeup ynlånea" gnied noitanijaab Iseonos exiveb szonziano!) . yowlief" ,"vineniet ogıso zaibosa yidianetao"

Teja inili mi. 8.H Jant Jeeper of wood erit evad I

Jnevərq of aqete yisnasoon erit edet ot bexas ed tam gnide¶ Ja .end() Lezjven to dorerd betroger sidt .ode,evad I

Larene-10įsi

YLIN .H.I

.be

.auido ndvoë ni aqooït edd ynibraomo!)

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

If I may say so, I respectfully agree on the question

of policy, but no breach of neutrality is disclosed. *Belligerents "have by the Law of Nations the right to prohibit and punish the "carriage of contraband (at sea) by neutral merchantmen", but "Inter- "national Law does not require neutrals to prevent their subjects "from carrying contraband". See Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. II, pages 495 and 496. And compare Article 7 of Convention V and Article 7 of Convention XIII of the Hague Conference of 1907 which concur in enacting the old customary rule that

-

"A neutral power is not bound to prevent the export or "transit on behalf of one or other of the belligerents of arms, "munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of *use to an army or fleet".

On this Oppenheim remarks, "Of course, such neutral as is anxious to "avoid all controversy and friction can by his Municipal Law order *his subjects to abstain from such acts, as for instance Switzerland "and Belgium did during the Franco-German War. But such injunctions "arise from political prudence, and not from any obligation imposed "by International Law" (page 428). I therefore think that the answer is that no breach of neutrality is disclosed, and though we might conceivably ask China to prevent the transit objected to it would be very impolitic to do so in view of the question of the Hongkong food supply.

yonsleorf si

P.S.

1.

·D.MD-X,yal yınel alɔmerT 112

•¿conoĦ to Toevo

Sd.

J. H. KEMP Attorney General

15th August, 1914.

The above was written in the belief that the Tientsin-Tsinanfu Railway was not the property of the Chinese Government. I have since looked up this point in Kent's Railway Enterprise in China, and find that in 1907 the arrangement with