60
- 3
independent working, while Article 7 (f) is confined to the suspension of "the running of through trains", and it follows that the argument that article 7 (f) does not apply to the British Section claims is shorn of the contention that
The crux of such provision is meaningless or of no effect. the argument is the phrase "political emergency". The situation in South China has unquestionably been a political emergency, and there seems to be no excuse for requiring some particular form of political emergency in order to interpret Article 7 (f). The expression is most apt and comprehensive. The word "revolution" or any similar word would have been quite impossible of introduction, as anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the Far Fast must know.
Both Article 7 (f) and Article 38 ( or 32) require notice, but argument by a party seeking to make a point of the fact that he failed to give notice is not calculated to impress any tribunal, nor does the requirement in Article 7 (f) attract any special significance or implification. The Manager of the Railway (British Section) has been asked whether, assuming the Chinese Section could go again through the years relevant to the claim but in the light of experience, suspension under Article 7 (f) or under Article 38 (or 32) would be the more profitable choice, and he has indicated that suspension under Article 7 (f) would be (and therefore has been) the more profitable to such section for it has made profits owing to nonsuspension of
the Agreement.
Search for a sound argument to put into the mouth of the Chinese Government brings to view the contention that
SO
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.