eat
mutui no!!
CALOUNT 133
maidinɑ ɑld con↑ anoiduuridevi tehow glórategy.
(aqələ? anhiɔ 3 ainaləmeruk noterede" prednal end dne::UTIO70) -olano a Jimaiend bio avisoet of beautet „ah ning mast immunod
mit ni að ựƐ to prsteros? end of bærɛambio verigio ni „a moisanje je ovius os tel, od Ilaria I .ma yỏ beigia bra not 80 BJD VODð falnofoɔ hmu Iniseypt end Yo maitinoq erið to MêLVIBVO, KJi ddiw odwołamoo of soitto mind to digit and oð . Tedyła ni
L
.ɔda juvad I
EIJACHO
.h2
· Intarex)-[sano)
sidewonoli eNT
JenseƐ Inimofol ent
• _rox_no!!
REC2
9427
REG 25 FEB 15
Dear Mr. Anderson,
160
Head Quarters, China Command,
Honkon 14th January, 1915.
With reference to the last paragraph of your letter
of the 8th instant addressed to the Hon. Colonial Secretary, Hon Kony, to which H. E. the Governor has asked us to reply, I raret that there can be no doubt whatever that you do not possess the right to communicate in code. Article 14 of the Regulations says "The use of code or cipher is only allowed for messages passing "between foreign neutral Governments and the Heads of their own "Diplomatic Missions, i.e. Ambassadors, Linisters or Charges "d'Affaires, provided that such messages bear in full (in English "or French) the official designation of the addressee and sender, "e.g. to 'Minister for Foreign Affairs, Buenos Aires' from 'Argen- "tine Linister, Rome'. Again, Article 16 explains Articles 14 and 15 and says "Consular Officers are not entitled to such diplomatic "privileges and their communications will be subject to the condi- "tions of any notifications that may be in force, and will be "treated as private telegrams". The Agents and Consuls-General in Cairo are expressly excepted. The rules are perfectly plain and we also know as a fact that other Censors on the line interpret ther in the arme way. Only last week one of our Assistant Censors, a new one, inadvertently allowed a telegram from the Kinistry of Foreign Affairs in Peking addressed to the Chinese Consul at Singapore to pass in transit through Hongkong. The Censors at Singapore refused to deliver it and drew our attention to the Regulations. Many times since the Censorship started we have reported the holding up of such telegrams to the Chief Censor in London and we have been instructed by him to stop the telegrams in question. It will suffice I think to give the last two cases: -
E. Anderson, Esq.,
U. S. A. Consul-General,
Hongkong.
I