11
see my marginal wote hinner minute 727/6/4) m'4) pl.
Seed
میرا
se und (40)
m.
I attended the meeting yesterday at the War Office referred to in Mr. Scarlett's minute
of 28/7 and in (31).
2. There was some discus sion before Mr. Hsu arrived, at which I mentioned that the Hong Kong claim for the return of coaches and wagons removed by the Chinese Canton-Hankow Railway (vide para. 5(i) of 20 and para. 5 of 21/24) had now been satisfactorily settled (vide Hong Kong Confidential despatch No. 68 of 6th April 1948 on 53627/48).
3. After Mr. Hsu arrived discussion was mainly about the Chinese Government claim. The War Office admitted liability in principle for the claim for requisitioned materials, said that they were prepared to pay £185,847 out of the claim of £323,689 and to consider the additional sum of £29,769
making the total of this claim up to £353,458 if a copy of a missing voucher were produced. They further said that the Chinese Government claim for £942,449 for material not actually requisitioned, but not allowed to be shipped out of Hong Kong without permit, had not reached them. I added that the Colonial Office likewise
had not had it (vide paragraph 2 of 21/24).
I
understood from what Mr. Hsu said that this claim had been made to the Hong Kong Government. It does not appear to have got beyond that. (Notes in this paragraph will be easier to understand if read with paragraph 1 of 20).
4. When the meeting ended Mr. Hsu remained to discuss details of the Chinese claim with War Office officers and I had a brief further discussion with Mr. Mussett (War Office) and the Treasury representative (who, I presume, was Mr. Wass).
5. Minutes were taken of the general discussion which took place both before and after Mr. Hsu arrived. I presume we shall get a copy in due
course.
6.
In my subsequent discussion with Messrs. Mussett and Wass the two points I raised were:-
(a) the Hong Kong Government claim against H. M. G.
for railway material shipped to the Middle East in 1941 (vide paragraph 6 of 21/24)
(16) the claim against the Chinese Government for
approximately £150,000 rent of, and damage to, property in Kowloon (vide paragraph 2 of 20 and paragraph 3 of 21/24 and separate file 54416/48).
As regards (a) Mr. Mussett said that the War Office accepted liability in principle, but thought the amount too high. I asked him to put it in writing so that we could discuss with Hong Kong. He said he would. The Treasury representative's only comment about this claim was on the small sub-claim for £9,000 odd on behalf of the War Supplies Board.
This showed be ₤17.
vos odd (in calculation behind 21/24)
He