See (5)+ memut -de it a the '35 file.
P. R.
than is the case with any removal scheme even
in this country.
On the whole I think that as far as
this side of the question is concerned, the
Hong Kong Government will be quite justified in
continuing with the removal. It seems desirable.
on sanitary grounds, and there is always the
danger that if agitation succeeds in holding
up the scheme for long, those concerned will
be encouraged to make unjustifiable demands.
The second objection is on the groună
of Treaty rights. This has been raised by the
Waichiaopu on several occasions (see Nanking
telegram No. 206 (Tour), enclosure to(7) on the
1936 file), but we have carefully avoided any
reference to it in our replies. On the whole
this would seem the most desirable line to
take up.
The matter may quite reasonably be
settled on the basis of "dictates of hygiene".
To raise the question of jurisdiction would be
to invite long and complicated discussions
which, as the Governor remarks in paragraph 4
cf(1) would react most unfavourable on the
present relations between Hong Kong and Canton,
and on Sino-British relations generally. I
do not know exactly what the legal position
is, but from enclosure 4 I judge that it is
not inconsistent with our previous policy,
obotine per ans
slightly pingestio) though Mr. Blackburn's
remark is that "the fact remained that that was
!
the British Government's attitude and there
was no likelihood of their receding from it".
If the Foreign Office is satisfied on this
point,