COPY.
(F 3099/37/10)
CONFIDENTIAL.
Dear Mr. Stephenson,
8th May, 1930.
521
I mentioned in my letter of the 6th instant that
Lampson had informally handed me a copy of Hongkong's amended
draft of the Agreement, drawn up last November. It is an
astonishing document and affords no basis whatever for dis-
cussion, as it is a radical alteration of the terms which the
Hongkong Authorities themselves agreed upon last July. I have
caused a table to be prepared showing where the new draft
differs from the original (printed) draft, and I append hereto
a copy of this table for reference. Perhaps I ought to invite
attention to the following general observations:-
(a) It is, for instance, hardly to be expected that the Chinese
Government would agree to the excision of the Salt clause
(Article II). So long as the Customs Administration is
under orders of the Government to search for and prevent
the smuggling of Salt, so long will a Salt clause be
necessary in a Customs Agreement.
(b) Again, if the inclusion of Article V, in the July 1929
draft dealing with Inland Waters privileges, was unaccep-
table to the Chinese Government, the terms in which it now
appears in the Minister's draft will only render it doubly
No Chinese Government could possibly agree to grant
to Hongkong conditions of Inland Waters trading which even
at present are denied at the Treaty-ports.
50.
(c) Further; is it not fantastic to expect that the Chinese
Government should allow goods under Chinese Customs
documents passing through Hongkong from one Treaty-port
J.W. Stephenson, Esquire,
London.
to/