Plaintiffs held the 30 per cent. tax to be unreasonable and contrary to the Treaties or agreements exist ing between the United States Government and the Republic of! China. The plaintiff, therefore, Asked for judgment comprising an order directing defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the merchandise in question and for such other and further relief as was <just and! equitable in the premises, or for value of said merchandise, Counsel for the defence alleged that the U.S. Court for China had rho jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action which was a dispute between plaintiffs and the Chinese. Maritime Customs.. Mr.
[Fessenden pointed out that the U.S. Court for Chine was one of limited jurisdiction, that its jurisdiction was founded upon and limited by the treaties between the United States and China and the Acts Congress of the U.S, enacted for the purpose of enabling said government to pat the treaties into opera-ion, He further stated in answer to the petition that by virtue of 'Article XXVIL of the Treaty of 1858 between China and the United States the civil jurisdiction of this Jeourt was' limited to questions of personal property rights arising befhween citizens of the United States in China and to controversies occuring in China between citizens of the U.S. and subjects of other governments; that neither under Said frosty nor any other treaty between China and the United States had this court. jurisdiction lover any, controversy arising in China between the Chinese Government as such and citizens. of the United States where the subject atte of such controversy was clusively and peculiarly a matter treaty between the respective gov-Jernments of the United States and China.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.