CO129-446 - Others & Individuals - 1917 — Page 97

- . -

(~~)

In the case of foods which

are actually the property of persons or

firms on the Statutory List, forfeiture of

the goods, either under section 11 of Ordinance

No.22 of 1915 or under any local Ordinance

hereafter to be passed, would be inconsistent

with international law.

(a) The forfeiture of goods which are

the property of an "enemy" in the strict

sense under British law is legitimate,

but

such goods cannot be forfeited otherwise than

by the decision of a Prize Court.

(e) Goods which are the property of

a person or firm residing or carrying on

business in the British Expire and therefore

subject to British jurisdiction, and which are

obtained from, or destined for, an enemy,

or a person or firm on the Statutory List, can

consistently with international law, be for-

feited by a Court, other than a Prize Court,

if the local law permits such a course.

(a) The principles laid down in the pre-

ceding paragraph (c) also apply in the case of

goods, which are the property of persons or

fires

95

firms carrying on business in allied

territory, provided that the shipment

of the goods constitutes an offence

against the Trading with the Enemy laws

enforced by the Allied Governments con-

This proviso involves that,

cerned.

before proceedings for the forfeiture

of the goods under the local law are

instituted, you should inform the Consul

for the Allied country concerned of the

situation, and ask him whether,

having

regard to the Trading with the Enemy laws

of his own country, he considers that

an application for forfeiture should be

made tothe Court.

If the Consul has no You shows objection the Colonial Government would

J

make arrangements for the institution

of proceedings in the ordinary way.

3.

I am advised that it follows

from these principles that the scope and

Should have been effect of section 11 are confined to

goods mentioned in (c) and (d) which

are obtained from, or destined for, an

enery