19
burdensome tem in expendit we. I
might ferhaps be worth while in
concurring in off to suggest that
fara. I should include a statement
that we should see no
Bjection
5 Chinese fost raising a ban on
the security of a portion of who indemnity
for the payment
of
labour required
in construction
G\
loop- live at
Canton which, as
stated in fara 5
1
of 4 on 6 2921/29, would be an
bject clearly to the mutual advantage
of both Gools, and therefore
mitable one
a
to receive assistance
from the returned indemnity funds ? So froceed eark for 2 copies of
Sis G. Gründle wroked
62921 Lobe recurred
thim.
dest as sent
n. Martin 1/11/29
9. R. Martin