3
argument is that the appointment should be made simply on commercial grounds; what that means, I do not understand. He probably
intends it to mean that the most efficient
man should be appointed. It would be going
a little far to say that commercial appointments
are invariably made on grounds of efficiency
and not of favouritism or nepotism, but I do
not think the Governor would venture to interfere
with an appointment made, say, by the Eastern Telegraph Company, solely on such grounds.
The whole position of the Chinese Telegraph
Office in Hong Kong is obscure to me. The "Agreement" of 1884, a copy of which I have obtained from the Foreign Office (see No. 3) is
merely an agreement between the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company and the Chinese authorities which gives the Hong Kong Government no rights of veto over the appointment of the Chinese Superintendent and I do not understand on what
grounds the Governor contends that his approval
of the appointment is necessary. It would appear that the Chinese have notchallenged his claim that his approval is necessary, but I
should prefer to be quite sure what basis
that claim has, before exercising the right
in the high-handed manner proposed by Sir
C. Clementi. He states that the existence
of the Telegraph Office in Hong Kong is an
Chanes anomaly and is obviously aching for a challenge
to get rid of it completely. I see nothing
anomalous in a commercial department of a
foreign Government being permitted to maintain
the agency in British territory. There must
ageneres
be lots of such recensies maintained
London