This,
1940, which was ignored by many officers. however, is the first direct submission that those who obeyed the order deserve financial compensation. Mr. Calthrop and Mr. Cruttwell apply only on behalf of their two selves, but it is clear that if any form of compensation is granted to them it will also have to be granted to all Hong Kong Government officers (and possibly even to non Government persons) who obeyed the order of June, 1940, to evacuate wives and families.
6. It might be argued against this submission that the complaint is not so much that they obeyed the order and thereby incurred expenses as that other did not obey the order and thus did not incur such expenses. From this aspect, one might say that it is no business of Mr. Calthrop and Mr. Cruttwell to draw attention to the conduct of their colleagues save in so far as that conduct was contrary to the public interest. The fact that certain officers got away' with disobedience to orders is no reason for rewarding those who complied with the order.
7.
I think, though, that i) should be acknowledged and the writers informed that a copy of their letter is being transmitted to Hong Kong for the considera- tion of the Hong Kong Government when civil administra- tion is resumed and that the matter will then be considered in the light of the recommendations received from the Colony.
(Sgd) A.H.D. Humphrey.
25.3.46.
Mr. Lloyd.
I do not think the claim is tenable. It is really based on X of Mr. Humphrey's minute of 12th March. I would reply as proposed except that I would say that the letter is being sent out for consideration by the Civil Government and leave it at
that.
(Sga) B.D. Edmonds.
28.3.
I too doubt whether it will be found possible to accept this claim. At least these officers and others in similar case had some offset to the additional expenditure incurred by their wives in that they themselves must have spent less in internment than they would in normal circumstances.
Nevertheless the two men have stated their case very reasonably, and if the Hong Kong Government could devise some way of meeting them which avoided the creation of other anomalies, it might be well worth consideration to the extent at least of waiving the balance of the deducted 10% of salary. (If proposals recently made by Mr. Palmer are approved, part of that balance will be paid over in all cases).
The reply should be in sympathetic terms. The two men should be informed that their claim is one which cannot be examined for them alone but will have to be considered by the Hong Kong Government on the restora- tion of civil administration for all officers in similar case, and that a copy of their wetter will therefore be
sent