CO129-424 - Governor Sir May - 1915 [9-10] — Page 282

277

Yangtse Wharf and Godown Company, which

3.

are the companies in question.

I am to explain that Mr. Bonar Law's

telegram of the 20th September should have

referred to section 11 of the Trading with

the Enemy Amendment Act 1914; and that the

더

Tel of the 5th out

Governor makes a mistaken reference in

42502

mentioning the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance

1914 instead of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

4. It will be observed that the two

companies mentioned above are apparently

Therefore

and it appears to be for

"China Companies"

%

Sir E. Grey to take such action in the matter

as he may think necessary. In this connection

I am to refer to ga (†) of the draft China

Companies Order-in-Council a copy of which was

enclosed in your letter of the 6th May No,

52997/15] and to g7 (1) of The Hong Kong Companies Bill,te copy of which formed the

Chami ade

within the mea..

m of Companies in Council's

MA

21119

enclosure to the letter from this Department

of the 13th September,

40876

5.

Special

Consors

to apost

appear Porta Case of

it appear

15m.

Sonar Law thall

3.

With regard to the question of

policy involved, I am to observe that

although legislation has not been passed

in this country with a view to making

(British Companies constituted of enemy

elements enemies in law, these 2 com-

Enese

ifferent

panies appear to stand on a footing, as The Proclamation of the

14th September makes plain what was pre-

sumably 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,

6 How China Company con-

stituted entirely of enemy elements or

are was to that Proclama

come with a principle, controlled by enemy subjects in an

analogous position to an enemy subject

residing or carrying on business in

(of course

China, and buchi per sene have been

enemies in law since the Proclamation

of the 25th June came into operation;