26
2.
see (2)
Ambassador Shanghai of February 20). My Japanese colleague
argues that vessel is chartered by Japanese navy (it arrived
under merchant flag but now has flag of naval transport service)
and that she came under that part of the agreement relating to
Shuttle services (see bottom of page 1). I pointed out that
agreement was never [? envisaged] to apply to other than genuine
Japanese Government chartered vessels which were to be per-
mitted to call at Hongkong on the way to other places and
carry specified classes of passengers only (see my telegram
No.241 of 1938). I could not put forward application for
this vessel to visit Hongkong in the usual way under agreement
without full explanation which I offered to do by despatch.
Thereupon he informed me that by my refusal I had broken the
agreement and that no further requests would be made by Japanese for visits of this [? character] of vessels to Hongkong nor
would they entertain any further requests for visits of
British passenger vessels to Canton and he has written since
cancelling the agreement to the sailing of "Fatshan" which
arrived today. [R ends ].
3.
Shirogane Maru constitutes an attempt on the part
of the Japanese to establish a regular passenger service on
Peace River at a time when interested British Companies are
not in a position to compete. My fear is for the future.
It...