File 3104/1915 Pt 2 ‘German War: conquered territory: status: question of trading; looting, etc., of goods by Turks’ [‎74r] (152/493)

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Enemy Firms.—7205. 20.
Enemy Firms.—7205.
Sir,
COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE.
[Answered by No. .]
Downing Street, 22nd December, 1916.
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Long to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of 16th October* enclosing copy of a despatch from His Majesty’s Minister
at Havre, and of your letter of 26th October,! from which it is observed :—
(a) That the Belgian Government have definitely inquired upon what prin
ciples occupied territories are being administered by His Majesty's Government; and
(b) That the French Government have proposed the holding of a conference
to consider questions of this nature.
2. I am to request that you will be so good as to inform Mr. Secretary
Balfour that Mr. Long has caused a careful examination to be made of all the
records available in this Ohice as to the measures adopted for dealing with the
private properties of enemy subjects in the territories occupied by His Majesty’s
forces, and that he is satisfied that no measures have been taken which can
properly offer the German Government ground for any increased severity in the
treatment of the occupied parts of Belgium and France, and that, with the possible
exception of Samoa and New Guinea, as to which (see below) further information
is required, every step which has been taken can be justified on the score of military
necessity.
37 In order to make this clear it will be desirable to recapitulate the action
actually taken in the various territories concerned.
(a) Togoland .—In this connexion I am to enclose, for convenience of reference,
a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Foreign Office on the 3rd January,
1916,J and of a replv§ which was received from the Foreign Trade Department
to this letter. As will be seen from these letters, the action taken in Togoland was
based entirely upon considerations of military necessity, which made it necessary
to deport enemy subjects, and consequently to take steps for dealing with their
businesses, which were, generally speaking, trading houses with large stocks of
import and export goods, and would otherwise have been left derelict. It could
hardly be contended that, in the circumstances, it was the duty of the occupying
Government to depute British subjects to superintend and continue the businesses
in question on behalf of the deported enemy subjects, even had it been possible
to find British subjects who could have undertaken such work. It was, therefore,
necessary in the interests of enemy owners to dispose of the stocks of the businesses
in question, which would inevitably have deteriorated if left unsold, and to collect
book debts which might well have proved unrealizable had they been left too long
outstanding. It was also thought desirable to meet out of the assets so realized
the claims against such businesses on the part of non-enemy creditors and enemy
creditors actually resident in the territory, but the process of liquidation has been
confined within these limits. No steps were t ake n for realizing the real estate
goodwill, and other permanent assets fiTfiHesFbiisinesses, and, unless further action
is taken hereafter, there will be nothing to prevent the enemy traders from returning
and resuming their business after the War, when they may be paid by ITis Majesty’s
Government the actual proceeds, subject to deductions in respect of liabilities
discharged on their behalf, of all the assets which have been realized. It seems
clear that the action above described is not of a confiscatory character.
{b) Cameroons .—Here it was found necessary, as stated in Major-General
Dobell's despatch of the 14th January, a copy of which was enclosed in the Colonial
Office letter of the 17th March,l| for the stacks of the businesses which had been left
derelict owing to the retirement of the European enemy population to be sold by
the British Expeditionary Force before the establishment of anv Civil Government.
The Governor-General of Nigeria was subsequently asked whether there were any
further assets available for realization in accordance with the Togoland policy.
The Governor-General has now reported that he does not, so far as his present
: No.
§ No.