CO129-440 - Others & Individuals - 1916 — Page 44

43

C. O.

60763

REC.

REGE DEC 16

Mo

53831

international law, be forfeited otherwise than by

decision of a frize Court.

With regard to the third paragrapa of your

letter under reply, Mr. Balfour is of opinion that goods

which are the property of a person or firm resident or

carrying on business in the British Empire and therefore

subject to British Jurisdiction, can, consistently with

international law, be forfeited under Section 11 of

Ordinance 22, if obtained from or destined for an enemy.

As already pointed out in the letter from this

Department of November 9th, the Ordinance is not

applicable in cases where there is reason to suspect

that the goods "are being directly or indirectly supplied

I in stile of the Goto

tion of 2,15 July

eung

to or for the use or benefit" of a firm on the Statutory

List, since such firms camot, in Mr. Balfour's view, be

treated as "enemy".

Mr. Balfour, nowever, sees no reason wily a

further ordinance should not be passed to deal with goods

thus destined for firms on the Statutory List, always

provided that power be not taken to forfeit goods not the

property of persons other than those subject to British

jurisdiction.

In reply to the further point dealt with in the

third paragrah of your letter, Mr. Balfour is of opinion

that the forfeiture procedure may be invoked in the case

of goods belonging to firms carrying on business in allied

territory provided that the snipment of the goods con-

stitutes an o.fence against the Trading with the Enemy laws

enforced/

J