5
(24)
92608/32.
(18) and (5) on 92608/32.
(24) idem and (3) on 13810/33
Government to implement their proposals to
provide alternative magazine accommodation for
the army, and at (24) on that file the Admiralty
agreed that until the question of the liability
for the cost of diverting the ropeway had been
settled they would be willing that the sum of
money involved (£5,000) should be deducted from
the final instalment payable by the Hong Kong
Government to naval funds.
At (3) on 13810/33 the Admiralty repeated
that they would raise no objection to the sum of
£5,000 being withheld, pending a settlement of
the question of the ropeway, when payment of the
last instalment of the two million dollars was
made.
The present position is that both the War
Office and the Admiralty have disclaimed liability
for the cost of diverting the aerial ropeway
though the Admiralty have, somewhat illogically,
agreed that the estimated cost of the diversion
(£5,000) should be withheld from the final
instalment due to them until the question is
decided.
In (6) on 92608/32 we subscribed to the
view that in return for a payment of $2,000,000
the Hong Kong Government was entitled to
receive the Naval Arsenal Yard free of encumbrances
and in (21) idem we told the Admiralty so. The
Admiralty as the other party to the agreement with
the Hong Kong Government should surely be
responsible for the removal of the ropeway, and
indeed, (5) on 92608/32 notwithstanding, they
appear to have gone some way towards accepting
such