}
۹۹
- 2
vessel, the latter was obliged to fire at the junks and
sink some of them. The Japanese Government undertook to
make further investigations and proaised that, if the pre-
vious report proved to be at fault and evidence could be
produced that there were British junks among those sunk and
British subjects among those killed, they would recon sider
the question of compensation.
in enquiry as to the result of the further
investigations was addressed to the Vice-inister for Foreign
Affairs on the 9th arch, 1938, in reply to which the inistry
stated in a memorandum dated the 18th April that the Japanese
Government, which had taken advantage of the presence in
Japan of the patrol vessel to make further enquiries, regarded
the matter as a purely Jino-Japanese affair. It was pointed
out that the Japanese patrol vessel was a mine sweeper and
not a submarine, that the patrol vessel acted in self-defence,
and that there was no indication that any of the junks were
Eritish property or contained #ritish subjects, (from the absence of markings and the actions of the crews they appeared
to be Chinese or pirates). The patrol vessel had unfortunately
been unable, in spite of efforts, to achieve adequate sucoess
in rescuing the survivors. The offer of indemnification Wes
renewed in the event of British subjects who did not take
direct part in the attack being among those killed.
His majesty's bassy replied on the 15th August
in an official note to the effect that is Majesty's Govern-
ment could not regard the Japanese version of the incident
as disposing of the findings of the Hongkong Commission. They
considered it highly improbable that fishermen would have
been so foolhardy as to attack a Japanese war vessel, md it
appeared that a serious breach of fundamental rules of war
and of the rules of conduct of operations against merchant
/ships