The plaints stilt further contend' that it "is clear from Mr. Justice Feetham's Report that he was of the opinion that Fangten'" land" was exempt from taxation, At page 30 of the, Feetham Report, we find the following:
"This necessity, for a constitution binding on all foreigners, was. the main burden of the speech in which [itr Alcock expounded the new Reulations and recommended "their Sdoption, but he made it clear that ihe intention was that the proposed Regulations should give power of con~ trol and taxation in respect of Chinas well as Foreign residents in the Settlement, "ste. Jones, "at page 202 of the 'Transcript of the Evidence, stated, in effect, that Mr, Justice Feetham never expressed the opinion verbally or in writing, that "Fangtan' land was not taxable' ahd that In fact. he (ifr. Justice Feetham) expressed surprise lat it was not, As a result of Mr. Justice Peetham's enquiries, Me, Kor. Fremoranda, which ultimately ied the and. Mr, prepare:
Gouneit' to tax 'Pangtan' land. other Words, it is" clear from the Feetham Report and the evidence of Mr. Jones, that Mr. Justice Feetham was of the opinion that 'Pangtan' land was taxable, At the conclusion Mr. Jones's" evidence, Dr. Lit Waived" eross-examination, thereby {tacitly admitting that Mr. Jones's testimony was correct, "the plaintiffs still further argue that the "right of distress' granted to the Couneit by Land Regulation 10 {s: modided or qualified by Land Reulation 12.) "This question was Thoroughly gone into at page 48. our Brief, We shall only add at this time the statement that the last clauses of Land. Regulation 10 and Land Regulation 13, were both added to the Land Regulations in 1869. Tit "was never intended that one should cancel the other. 'The remedy of distress' for taxation isa common, ordinary, and. usual procedure In England. If the party upon whom the distress' is levied claims exempt tion from taxation, he' may apply. a Court where the cate is ted. The Plaintiffs have the same remedy. They may apply to this Court where the ase wil be tied, as this case is now cing. tle ithe plaintits stilt further argue that Chinese are not members of the voluntary" association, known as thi Shanghai Municipal Council, and that therefore, the case of the China Pub: ishing Company isnot in point, Such' an argument {s conclusively answered by reference to the Proclamations of Taotais Lan and Li and 'Article 2 of the Court Agreement, which provides that the Land Regula Vions are' applicable to Chinese citizens. In the "North China Herald: dated October 8, 1927, the proceedings {in the case of the China Publishing Company ya. the Shanghai Musicipal Council, are reported. It appears on page 56 that Land Regulation 10 was Quoted and relied upon by the Coun-fel. The decision in the case of the China Publishing Company Is. conclusive as far ae the right "of the Council to out off the telephones and lights is concerned. The decision this Coury must take precedence 05 authority over the Feetham Report
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.