COPY.
Colonial Secretary's Office,
Hong Kong.
15th. July 1932.
sir,
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th. June, 1932, and in reply to inform you that the Government regrets that it is unable to agree to a reduction in the present scale of light dues payable by ships entering the harbour of Hong Kong or to introduce the system of a compounded fee to cover the calls of regular traders over an extended period.
2. In the first place any reduction in the scale of light dues would no doubt necessitate a corresponding in- crease in some other form or forms of taxation, and, whilst the Government is of the opinion that the cost of the admin- istration of the port and of the facilities provided therein should not fall wholly on shipping, it is unable to agree that the existing balance should be disturbed to the dis- advantage of the general taxpayer.
3. Secondly the Government does not agree with the contention that Hong Kong harbour is expensive when compared with other ports in the Far East, or elsewhere in the world. Two of the statements attached to your letter deal principally with coastal ports such as Canton, Swatow, Foochow. They offer few of the facilities and little of the security of Hong Kong. Of the larger ports, Manila would appear to be more expensive than Hong Kong if allowance is made for the same number of entries as in the case of Hong Kong. Of the re- maining large ports, an appearance of cheapness is shown as a result of the system of compounded fees, a system which penalises the occasional ship as against the frequent caller as instanced by the s.s."Empress of Russia" at Shanghai.
4. In general the Government considers the system of compounded fees less equitable then payment in proportion to the use made of the port facilities.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Sgd) E.R.Hallifax.
Colonial Secretary.
37