Continuing, Dr. Fischer submitted the Assessor, in his original decision, had stated that such an agreement to refer the case to the: Vladivostok Court was against pub-tic policy and the sovereign rights. lof the Republic of China, and therefore could not be enforced. That, contended counsel, would be right in eases of exclusive Jurisdiction and in actions relating to property which would have to be brought before the court where the property was situnt-'The Court furthermore would had not cho-
Court, but in his case the {Wo courts were competent and as the Chinese law alowed the parties to choose either place, plaintiff, in agreeing to the: Vladivostok court, could not now inyoke the question of public policy Chinese sovereign rights. The ease, said counsel, involved a large sum of money and there was no court to which defendants could ap-Court. De. Fischer realized how peal from the decision of the Mixed hard it was to admit to have erred, but the only right defendants had iwas to have the decision reheard by the same Assessor who originally heard the case and delivered the decision, Britich and American Precedents Mr. Schuhl submitted that the in order and emphasized would lead to an impossible tion if Russian firms in Shanghai could not be sued in the Mixed Court if they had offzes in Russia, Furthermore, submitted Mr. Schuh, ish and Ameri-sions declared that such ipulations beforehand of the juris-fiction of the Court could not be enforced.
Dr. Fischer replied and the Court reserved its decision,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.