CO129-439 - Others - 1916 — Page 619

difficult to understand ter aynment, which seems kome

thin quinte inconsistent with wording of the various enact-

ments concomed.

Thus the THE Prats of the olis Sep. 1944 prohibits inter alin the obtaining foods from an enemy (para. 5. (7)-) and "enemy" is S. 3. Not by referense defined in

but in to the Commen fet kom.

اسها

Then 5. 1B) ather TIE- Extension

of Powers Act you directs that (inter alia) the above Proclaw?

shall apply

to" enemy" in

as if for reference

the Proclaw? shall

be substitutes references to persons & on the Statulory

List.

Stow in the face of this can it be argued that Statutory

Enemies listes are not treated as for the purpose of the Proclawd

But after all this is a quechen

614

for the Courts and not for the Foreign Trade Department

by

of ourselves and I think we might content ourselves

? replying that we note with interest the con-

tentione advanced in these paragraphe but that

the Court at Hong Kong does not appear to have taken the Foreign Trade Department view, and

that in any case it would seem impossible

now to appeal against the order for forfeiture

which was originally made on the application of

the Government, and that as the goods have no

doubt long since been sold and Foreign Trade

Department do not wish us to take any action

regarding compensation, we presume that nothing

need be done on the last paragraph of 50752.

With regard to the general proposition put forward in the

4th paragraph of this letter. The argument now seems to

be that the procedure established p 8.11 of 22/1915 H.K. should only be used where the goods are owned by some

person within the jurisdiction of the Colony and I think

this argument is, at least partially, sound,

Foreign Trade Department speak only of "enemy goods", no

doubt because the consignor and consignee were both on the Statutory List, but I take it their meaning is as just stated. As to the form of the Hong Kong law (9.11 of 22/15)

I don't think that that differs substantially from that

of the United Kingdom so far as the present point is con- cerned. The effect of S.6 of the Custome (W.P.) Act 1918

as extended by 5.2 of the Customs (W.P.) No.2 Act, 1915,

seems to be to make all goode imported in contravention of the law relating to Trading with Enemy (including presum- ably the T/E. (Extension of Powers) Act) liable to

forfeiture