CO129-424 - Governor Sir May - 1915 [9-10] — Page 276

1

upon a different footing. The Proclamation of the Kli Sept makes plain, what was presumably already

law, that a Company carrying on business in enemy territory must, in so far as it does so carry on business be treated as an enemy. Now a China Company con- stituted entirely of enemy elements or controlled by enemy subjects is in an analogous position to an enemy subject residing or carrying on business in China and such persons have since the Proclamation of June 25th

AMS came into operation been enemies in law. could

therefore I think quite consistently treat these two,

& Pans any legislation necemen to malle

I think companies and others like them as enemies, that if you agree, we might? send a copy of our telegram on 42502 and of the Governor's reply to the Foreign

Office explaining the errors above mentioned, with copy

these latten of 33838 without enclosures, en the Foreign Office

Telegram.

5)

A

1x

the possible

sent us on 283)

28314. We should call attention to the fact that these companies are apparently China cor,anies and it is therefore apparently for the Foreign Office to take any action they may think necessary, and we might refer

to section 6 (1) of the draft China Companies Order in

Council, section 7 (1) of the Hong Kong Companies Bill. and stated as at so far as the question of policy is

concerned.

A

06.8/10705

shavsalaty discussed this with us Frangoon

therefore have lilth 6 add except that 3

think it clear that these comframes shed to dealt with as China Companies" when the

One co passed

passed. It will only, remeni

for the At Khoney Count to cenforce intrin ther

order wade for ther Chuna Court with refume to a cinn Comfor

11.10.75 long ove

น

sex lth. If one

Sic 5(31

A&C

9.10.15

Gor

271

45650

The Governor of Hong Kong to the secretary of State

for the Colonies.

(Received Colonial Office 1.40.p.m. 5th October, 1915.

70.

47502

With reference to your telegram of the 20th September I presume that you refer to the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance 1914. There is no legislation here exactly corresponding to section 11 of that act but, see

Amendment) section 7 of the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance 1915. The objection to using that section is that the Companies will not slow the supervisor to carry out his functions.

It also seems doubtful whether a supervisor could be legally appointed of business carried on and mensred entirely outside of the jurisdiction even if it be carried on by a Company registered within the jurisdiction. The local regiater licences of these Companies under section 35 of the Companies Ordinance 1911 would not be renewed after the 31st of December and it then might be possible

to strike them off under section 36. Opportunities of

enforcing section 257 may arise. If immediate action is desired in my opinion the only effective step would be to take summery power to strike the Companies off the register on ground that preponderating number of apparent

enemy shareholders in the last annual summary.

MAY.