30
Kwel tol
Hong Kong No. 254 of the 26th October; on the other hand,
he considers that it would be prudent for the company to
avail themselves of any unofficial contacts which they may
have with the Japanese Consulate-General for the purpose of
bringing the transaction to the notice of the latter.
3. In their letter to the Colonial Secretary of the
27th September last, Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Company
raise the question of the Declaration of London in relation
to the proposed transfer. In the absence of a formal state
of war this question does not arise. It nevertheless falls
to be considered whether, if a state of war were to be
recognised before (or even shortly after) the completion of
the contemplated transfer, the Japanese Government would be
bound to regard the transfer as operating to divest the vessels
concerned of their previous enemy character.
Mr. Eden is
advised that the provisions of the Declaration of London, which
was never ratified, have no real force except in so far as they
are declaratory of pre-existing practice. In this case the
relevant provisions in fact represent a certain departure from
previous British and American practice, which was that a vessel
was divested of enemy character provided that the transfer was
bona fide, that the previous enemy owners retained no interest
in the vessel and had not the right of eventual repurchase, and
that the transfer was not made with the object of avoiding a
capture. The British post-war Naval Prize Manual provides in
paragraph 16 for a reversion to this practice.
It is not
known what Japanese practice would be if a state of war were
to come into existence; during the Russo-Japanese war, however,
Japanese prize regulations followed the old English rule. In
the event of the present transaction not having been completed
before the assumption by Japan of belligerent rights, it would
not/
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.