4
that despatch the Governor said that concurrently
with the negotiations for the transfer of the
Arsenal Yard the question of the removal of the
Military Magazines (Kennedy Road) was being explored,
and that it appeared to have been tacitly assumed
that the ropeway would become superfluous on the
removal of the military magazines. That removal,
however, has been indefinitely postponed, and
therefore the question now arises as to who shall effect·
pay for the diversion of the ropeway.
At (5) on 92608/32 the Admiralty stated that
the War Office had agreed that no expenditure in
(including the diversion] connection with the retention
of
the ropeway should fall on naval funds, and that
failing a solution of the problem on other lines the
question of meeting such expenditure should be a
matter for discussion between the War Office and the
Hong Kong Government.
At (6) idem we asked the War Office whether
they wished the ropeway to be maintained, and if so
whether they were prepared to accept liability for
the cost of diverting it, and to pay compensation to
the Hong Kong Government for the depreciation which
might be caused to the Naval Arsenal Yard as a
building site by the passage over it of the diverted
ropeway. We added that unless it was possible to
reach agreement on these lines the Secretary of State
was unable to agree that the question of retention of
the ropeway should be treated as separate issue.
In (18) idem the War Office said that the
continued use of the ropeway after the evacuation
of the Arsenal Yard by the naval authorities would
be due to the failure on the part of the Hong Kong
+
Governmert