The following queries have been submitted by Lieutenant-Colonel J. T. Wilson, Censor, Sydney, viz:

1. Is it legitimate for a trading firm here to purchase from a firm in a neutral country goods manufactured in an enemy country if such goods have become by purchase the bona fide property of the neutral party?
2. Should the answer to query (1) be in the affirmative, how is the legitimacy of the transaction affected by a presumption that the neutral firm or party in the neutral country is not a bona fide proprietor of the goods of enemy origin, but is acting as the agent in neutral territory of an enemy firm in enemy territory?
3. Is trading legitimate between a firm here and a firm in extra-European neutral territory, which is known to be a branch of a firm whose headquarters is in enemy territory?

And the answers thereto are as follow:

1. It is forbidden, by the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation, to obtain goods, directly or indirectly, from an enemy country or from an enemy. This would, in my opinion, cover the purchase, from a firm in a neutral country, of goods made in an enemy country and purchased by the neutral party from the enemy after the outbreak of war. It would probably not cover goods of enemy manufacture which were stocks owned in the neutral country at the outbreak of the war.
2. The transaction is not legitimate if the neutral firm was the agent of the enemy firm and not the owner.
3. If really a branch-yes. But a distributing house for the enemy principal is not considered as a branch. The exact meaning of 'branch' is not clear; but it is considered that the transactions with branches in neutral or friendly territory, which are permitted under paragraph 5(10) of the Proclamation, do not include transactions which involve, directly or indirectly, a transaction with the principal house.

[Vol. 13, p. 156]

(1)Date in Opinion Book incomplete.

(2)This opinion is unsigned in the Opinion Book, but it is attributed to Mr Garran.