- 2 -
12.
the Chinese seamen, to have been in a position to explain
the situation to them.
If I am writing to you now about the same questions, it is because they were raised again, inter
alia, in a resolution which the Chinese Workers' Delegate wished to move at the Session of the International Labour
Conference held in June last, but which was not handed in to the Conference Secretariat in due time to be considered.
The Chinese seamen will, however, no doubt wish to bring the resolution forward again at a subsequent Conference, and I am therefore suggesting to them that the paragraphs relating to their alleged grievances as regards Hong Kong
I should not be included and am informing them of my
intention to write to you unofficially on the subject.
The object of this letter is therefore to
acquaint you with the questions raised by the Chinese
Seamen's Union and to ask you to be good enough, if you
see fit, to inform me of your views regarding them.
As this
The first of these matters is concerned with a
strike of Chinese seamen at Hong Kong, which, I am informed,
took place in 1922. It is stated that the strike was
terminated on 8 March of that year following an agreement
between the shipping companies and the seamen which
provided that a sum of 300,000 Chinese dollars should be
paid to the strikers as an unemployment indemnity.
sum could not be raised immediately, Sir Robert Hotung is
said to have given surety for its eventual payment, and it
was on the strength of this that the strike was terminated.
Finally, the seamen state that, although seven years have
passed since the strike, the shipping companies have not
yet paid the agreed indemnity.
The