letter of the 12th July. In paragraph 3 of his despatch
of the 30th January the Governor explains that the
on
valuation of the list attached to that despatch
exceeds that given in his despatch No. 292
of the 12th December 1947, because it covers
several vessels not included in the earlier
valuation. That earlier valuation was £143,950,
the figure quoted in paragraph 2 of your letter
of the 12th July. This, I think, explains the
difference between the figure you have of
£143,950 and the figure of about £200,000 which
appears in the telegrams. Both figures in fact
(8)
(1)
(12) m 54126/6/47 exhastid (IA)
relate apparently to the same valuation by the
Director of Marine, but the second figure is
larger because it includes some additional items
not covered by the first, (you will note that the
Governor's despatch of the 12th January says nothing
about the claims on behalf of the Admiralty and
(8)
(8)
War Office to which also you refer. I shall return
to this point below).
4. The Governor's despatch No. 292 of the 12th December
1947 dealt with a large number of items of expenditure
of various kinds, liability for meeting which was
at issue between H. M. G. and the Hong Kong Government.
The Ministry of Transport harbour craft was one of
these. As a result of the general financial settlement
finally arrived at the Hong Kong Government became
liable for such payment as might be finally agreed
for these craft.
5. Mayo's letter to Bourdillon No. TM. 29410 of
the 26th April 1947 suggested that there were craft
(12) m 54126/6/4)
8) on 1946/7 file
in
33