tomskog. Savy. 1.641 - (1) amass.
Kong -
1
3 v JUN 1948
Dry, a 50126/6/45 6. You
tel. 487.
20-5-48
Aft...
7. You.
tel. 589
25-5-48F
8 mp2pt. 9. Gov.
- C.D.S. 13001
12-7-4F
tel. 543 Sen
11-8-48.
Im to
54126/6/48
10.
11. D. Haigh (M/Ipt).
12 M/THE..
Doop. 31 Sec
12-8-48.
Undated.
C.).S.13001
27-10-48
1. I am sorry this case has held the bottom of the pile for so long.
2. Mr.Hampden of the Ministry of Transport, who signed (8) and (12), is an Assistant Secretary and I suggest that in all circumstances and in view of the action proposed our best course is a s.o. approach from Mr. Sidebotham as in draft.
3. The case has considerable complications and has been made more difficult to understand because of the inadequacy of the information received from Hong Kong, but the draft is, I think, self- explanatory and there is no point in repeating in minutes what there appears.
4. So far as the Ministry of Transport claim is concerned it would seem from the last paragraph of (9) that the Governor would be quite happy to accept the valuation made by the Director of Marine 1.e. £143,950 or £199,175 as the case may be
see paragraph 3 of draft. There has been no sugestion that the Ministry of Transport expect more than this, so perhaps not much negotiation is required on this claim. But the Admiralty and War Office claims for £180,850 and £52,400 respectively
another matter on which we have no information at all. It is extraordinary that Hong King should never have mentioned these to us when, as the Ministry of Transport tell us, the Director of Marine put in these claims at the same time as he put in the Ministry of Transport claim.
As the Governor points out both in (1) and in 9), the Director of Marine is Agent in Hong Kong for the Ministry of Transport for certain purposes
for the origin of this arrangement see enclosures to (1) and (2) on the 1946/47 file).
5.
4