CO129-417 - Public Offices - 1914 — Page 240

235

р

}

doubt have their "commercial domicil" in Sweden - which

"commercial domicil" would be neutral.

As they are carrying on business within the

Chinese republic in aralogous circumstances there

seems to be no reason for holding that they carot possess a Chinese commercial domicil. They are not carrying on business within the secerned German

extra-territorial community in China but in China

itself, which is the country of their trade residence.

This point is much the more important of

the two which are raised in the first sentence of Mr

Fraser's telegram. For the reasons given I have

come to the same conclusion as Mr Malkin about it. It

is however a matter of great practical importance, as

well as of some theoretical difficulty,and I think

that the Attorney General should see these papers and

be asked to be good enough to give his opinion on them,

(2)

With regard to the second question, viz., the right of the German to have access to the British extra territorial Court I think that this depends in principle, so far as English law is concerned, on wheth- ·

er his "commercial domicil" in respect of the transac-

but if tions in dispute is neutral or hostile

-

Germany in the converse case would apply the test of nationality and not the test of residence for purposes of trade a British plaintiff would not get reciprocity in the German Court and a question of policy would

then arise.

W.E.D.

3/9/14

Page 240Page 241