15
when it requisitioned
1
!
Mr.Mussett that we have not had anything from Hong Kong about this Chinese claim. We must, I have no doubt, asked Hong Kong what the position is about this claim (particularly since Jardine's have been misled in the matter, certainly by us, and possibly also by Hong Kong and I have little doubt that the Foreign Office will press us to enquire from Hong Kong about this claim), but we must in my view be in a position to tell Hong Kong something about their own claim (after 18 months!) at the same time. Hence the line I suggest in my draft.
-
It looks to me as though the War Office view about this claim that there is no claim against them
is probably right and that it will be for the Hong Kong Government to answer. (As a matter of fact, it looks to me very much of a "try-on" see the first enclosure to (33) and I should not think there would be much difficulty in answering it).
W
5. Finally, to return to (c) above.
?
and
The Hong Kong Government asked the Nanking Embassy to place this claim with the Chinese Government and this was done (see (3) on 54416/47). The War Office heard of it from H. Quo FARELF see (7) on 54416/47 and, while agreeing that the ultimate liability was on the Chinese Government, raised at once the question of liability for immediate interim payments. They argued that the property was requisitioned by the Army only because the Military Administration constituted the temporary Government of Hong Kong at the time and therefore that if any interim payments were to be made, the Hong Kong Government should make them, not Army Claims Hirings. We told Hong Kong about this and in (8) on 54416/47, the substance of which we passed on to the War office in (10) on the same file, Hong Kong explained why they thought the liability was on the War Office, not on the Hong Kong Government. In (6) on 54416/48 the War Office then completely shifted their ground and said that they did not know that the question of whether the British Military Administration was acting as the then Government or on behalf of the British Military Authorities was really a very important point in the case. Interim payments, if they had to be made, would be made primarily to avoid hardship and discontent and the responsibility for doing this lay with the Hong Kong Government, not the War Office. In (10) on 54416/48 we declined to accept the view that any interim payments which might be made would be made primarily for the purpose of avoiding hardship and discontent. In (14) on 54416/48 we reminded the War Office for a reply about these interim payments. A stalling reply in (15) on 54416/48 was followed by (17) on the same file, which confirmed that no instructions to H. Q. FARELF to cease interim payments had yet been issued. (But in fact we had been told in (7) on 54416/47 that claims and Hirings had stopped making payments). In (18) on 54416/48 we acknowledged this and asked to
(17)
be