!
1
EVITRUM
588
shipowners on the same basis as the Home Government, but there may be other questions of detail of this character ac perhaps you would kindly state that any other detail on which the Hongkong Shipowners did not receive similar consideration must also be favourably considered by the Hongkong Government.
There is another side to the question and that is,
we are informed that some of the shipowners, both British and Chinese, actually made a loss in connection with the control of their steamers, which losses can be proved. It must be remember-
ed that part of the remuneration paid to shipowners was a commis-o
al on on charter hire and it was only in certain cases that
favourable charters could be arranged.
We can well understand that it is very unpalatable
for ship owners to make a loss of this kind and we submit that it
is unreasonable that they should be asked to face an actual lose
We think it is a case there favourable consideration should be
given to them and that really it is a loss which should be treated
on similar lines to matters which are dealt with by the War Losses
Compensation Commission here which as you know favourably considere
and allows payments to be made to applicants who actually prove
losses in this country. We give as an instance a matter
which appeared in the papers last week, viz., the Hotel Cecil,
where we see £35,000, has been allowed in connection with
lose for goodwill arising from the occupancy of that Hotel by the
-2-