002
501
**
berband go redtona nads susi noktatzegunezd zož zmofynal
edi voda
MITULI SO BITSTEP COMOLCA* TP# Comp OL FIT='
بر
aloeasy sme suid 10 angajavam sút baotta birom daɗt thớc
xado aotutkđango, una deqTY ai, nośnað moxl Ima of ɣltosuit
.siqo y mit go una esteem200 33 no
melimin s ayaq yiinioły ima moinað mor】 brưadtun SUISERDÜ
dow
xat
Itod to send wat al zastxa oysal a od boblova od of
bas zovia mojned led to arguerotqat odd ed ottoqui bus æftoqxo
edi gniliină și 3800 odd, ynidaoge pioritateqmod visítvá
ant donen l'ini odsaoß jenteys JIN „‡i tq«w notnað to siqooq
DNA YOVIYA Stoque no lo Jalog and knoɣad Joj zaven nød 13ðjun
.Toge
,anoitum redte lo soISUMOS DĖŽ në sa zetul2 on vesd I
eroatoma pasitason ai einastane odd twi
JILL OF CTioNdroqgo on ebzofie Jemlozą imoxilat sắt
„Jo@jogy fromévorqui zɔviz alád no oyinɗam mưa
L
KOTE
of a conversation between Sir Charles Addis, K.0.1.0., and
Mr. Charles F. Whigham at the office of the Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation London on November 23rd, 1922.
1. The fundamental basis of Mr. Stevens'limmorandum appeari
to be the alleged existence of a Treaty between Great Britain
and China, designed to prevent the connection of the Canton
Hankow Railway with the river and to check the development
of Canton harbour,
2.
After exhaustive search of his own records and after
reference to the Government Departments concerned, Sir Charles
Addis is unable to trace any such Treaty or Agrement. If Mr.
Stevens can give identifying particulars Sir Charles Addis
will be glad to make further enquiries. He is, however, convin-
ged that it has no existence.
3.
As pointed out in the last paragraph of Mr. Jones' letter
of August 17th, the Canton-Kowloon Railway Loan Agreement
contains the provision that the Chinese Government shall not
build another line competing with that railway to its
detriment. This is a clause common to all Railway Agreements,
and refers to the construction of parallel competing lines
and not to lines connecting with the river.
4. Apart from the question of the existence of the treaty
referred to in Paragraph 1, Mr. Stevens suggests that the
British purpose is definitely directed to restricting the
development of Canton Harbour, and, as one of the means to
this end, to preventing the connection of the line with the
river.
5. Sir Charles Addia categorically denies that this is or
ever has been the purpose of the British Group. On the
contrary, it has always been their policy to preserve to
the Chinese Goverment complete freedom of action.
Incidentally,