Mr. Davies, acting on behalf the Great American Insurance Ca,, held that there was no entity euch as the Republic-of China which could sue in the U. S. Court and no fanetioning ministries, and that, therefore, the power of attorney presented by Mr, Franklin and bear. ing the seal of T. Y. Tsiang, Ministry of Communications, had no more import than a similar document issued by any private indivi ideal. Mr, Allman raised the ques. tion of verification of the seal of this document by the American Legation.
Replying, Mr. Franklin said that he had requested the American Minister in Peking to state the degree of recognition of the Peking government by the United. States in October, 1925, when the insurance polices were issued and in February, 1926, when the fire occurred. Mr. Franklin contended that the Peking government held these policies at the time of the fire. Rumour had it that the policies stolen by the Nationalist authorities Who were in possession of them now.
The cable received through the local American Consulate from Mr. MacMurray in Peking was presonted in evidence by Mr. Franklin. As preliminary it was indicated that Messrs. Chalaire & Franklin should be notified as follows:
"That T. Y. Tsiang was Director General of "the Department of Telegraphs of the Ministry of Communications of the Provieional Government. of the Republic of China which the American Government was then on a de facto basis of relationship. Although thereafter the American government ceased to recognize the Peking regime as a de facto government of the Republic of China, it has since this in fact dealt with it as a political entity exercising the obligations of the country as a whole, Among other subordinate administrative organs the continuity of the Peking Ministry of Communications has remained unbroken although the area has boon restricted within which its authority is recognized. It is possible that under the circumstances, it can be established by evidence that the Peking Department of Telographs is the tame now as the earlier date in question, for the limited purpose of this proceeding."
Parallel from 1812
His Honour alluded to a situate which he introduced for the sake of comparison which arose in the War of 1812 when the capital of the United States, Washington, was captured by the British who did not recognize the American Republic, President Madison had had to leave Washington and go to Virginia, but the Wathington governniont was still the government.
Mr, Allman—It was recognized by other powers as a de facto and ade jure government, His Honowr—Yes, but not by England, it. Allman thereupon point' about the phrase "li purpose of this proceeding."
His Honour—Well, Mr.
Murray is the diplomatic representa. tive of the United States.
Continuing, Judge Purdy said that as far as he knew Peking had been the recognized capital since the first days of the Republic and though territory had been falling away from them the government was still there. But the question in his mind was whether the idea of the Republic of China had at any time lost its entity or identity; whether the revolution had been 89 bad as absolutely to overthrow that entity. Of course, it had come pretty close to the line when you thought of what had happened, bat the Peking government had still functioned, Reference was made here by Mr. Allman to the Customs Conference which had had to finish up quickly because there had been no one there to deal with.
Why were ministers of all nations still there if there was no Government? His Honour asked.
Replying, Mr. Allman said that letters of withdrawal had presented to a government before the ministers could leave. There was no government in Peking to present the letters of withdrawal to.
Defendants' motions were, however, denied and ruling given of a prima facie case. His Honour ted out that the question before the court had been simply that of authority to bring the suit and that subsequent matters such as to whether or not, the Republic of China owned the property in question would be involved. Counsel for the defence asked for 20 days before the next hearing was set, following which the court was ad-Journed.
Two months was the sentence method out on Wednesday in the provi ional Court in the case of 3 bag-snatcher. Inspr. Mills pointed out that this sort of thing was very prevalent nowadays and every day Sinza Station had to deal' with three or four cases,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.