1
15
It is unjustifiable because it is not in
accordance with either the actual language of the Treaty
or the intentions of those who framed it. In a letter
of 12th January (185 C) Foreign Office say "It was, in
the Secretary of State's view always realised at
Washington that in the case of ports like Hong Kong,
which is at the same time a naval station and an
important commercial port, it was impossible to forbid
the increase of the commercial facilities of the port,
such as docks, on the ground that the increased facili-
ties would be available for warships. It is therefore
only "naval facilities" which are dealt with in Article
19". (Foreign Office then proceed to reject the strange
claim by Admiralty that an extension of the naval dock
would be admissible). This Foreign Office view is borne
out by the printed record of the Conference, and by the
wording of the treaty. The word "naval" before "facili-
ties" would be quite meaningless otherwise.
It is therefore contended that Article XIX
of the Treaty presente no obstacle to future harbour
development by the Government of Hong Kong.
But in sand of the
Adminally letter
of
16k Jebe. it may
be later as settled
Vend of
all beft!
concernd
H.B.
16.2.23.