it seems to me it is now the Chinese who are really claiming extra territorial rights.]
As regards the suggestion that the Chinese trustees should have an office in the Garden of Remembrance, a joint office for both trustees would, perhaps, be less objectionable, but that is a matter for Hong Kong to consider.
In the first place, therefore, I think we have got to
6.
the suposal queral and make up our minds whether paragraph 2 or some modification
in
of it, would in any way be likely to be acceptable, and before referring the matter to higher authority, in view of the minutes of 1st and 2nd March on Part II of this file below, I should be grateful for your views please.
JBL
1.5.1948.
motio
M. Roberts bray.
to Difficulty may be caused by the ffice" proposal. The purpose is left vague
Maria 17 of the "Case submitted point there. If a joint office for
may
be in
The trustees
could be arranged I think the propanal would be harmbes & ex teblich equatt
-3/5/48
One
This approach seems to me rather hopeful. must remember, and try to see, the Chinese point of view, bearing in mind that our case is not one of cast iron strength. To the Chinese, offers to talk about a surrendering jurisdiction would appear like begging the question.
As regards the draft Memorandum, it would appear to anyone only natural that the Trustees should have an office in the area, and I should think that it would be an admirable soluetion of this particular point to provide that the two Trustees should have either an office each or one between them.
I note that the draft refers to "Chinese and British nationals" and the "provisional government of Kwantang and the British authorities in the leased territory of Kowloon", i.e., the Chinese put themselves first. This may appear a small point but it is one to which in international documents some importance is attached, and I believe the usual practice nowadays
is