due to the Chivers Section, who in any
Case
an
leability.
I think, justified in refeedwating
The farticulars as to demurrage
12
claims now
forwarded
seem to show
that these do
not refer to
wagons
detained on
occasions of emergency suspension,
alt though the Chinese Section in
1924 alleged that the detention was in
faut due =
the suspensions. We should clear this up. Either (1) the Clemese Section
is right and
these claims really lie
agamist the Provincial Gost and should
now be abandoned (not pressed) or (2)
ન
they are wron and can equitably be called upon to hang up.
? Send def 16 to FO say that if
then conces, we profore to inform Soo, that
we
apree
that though claims in
of suspension are
in respect
not to be bressed, they of