1:
Parn
?!
ef
14/8/34 ?
Mr. Vallat.
Mr Mervyn Jones.
•
China Department.
I have read the draft case for the Law Officers. I have sent it on to the Legal Adviser of the Colonial Office, and attach a copy of the letter which I have written to him. I want here to indicate the lines on which I think the present draft probably requires amendment.
Paragraph 11, dealing with the revival of the question of jurisdiction in 1933 in connection with a proposed expropriation of
I certain Chinese property in the City. think this paragraph should be expanded to show more fully what exactly happened with regard to this matter. It is clear from the papers that I read that it dragged on three or four years. Did the Chinese eventually go? If so, did they go merely on a voluntary basis because they accepted alternative accommodation outside the Walled City which the Government of Hong Kong offered, or what happened?
Paragraph 13. The present draft says:
".. but there seems to have been
some reluctance by H.M.G. to argue the legal issues.
M
Reading the relevant correspondence in Paper E, this passage appears almost an euphemism. Sir A. Cadogan's note of the 5th August, 1935, certainly conveys the impression that H.M.G. thought they had no legal case to expropriate and simply based themselves on the fact that they had offered alternative accommodation which the Chinese had accepted. Now, on the face of it this note is very damaging before an international tribunal, and this paragraph therefore, I think, wants some expansion dealing more fully with this correspondence, indicating the purport of what we said and why we took this line, showing both how it can be used against us and what we can say in reply if it is.
Paragraph 14. Again, I think this wants some expansion. How did the matter arise in 1946, and perhaps copies of the statements issued should be enclosed in Paper E.
Paragraph 18. I have commented on the point which arises here in my letter to Mr. Roberts-wray.
Paragraph 22. I think we must deal here a little more fully with the Chinese argument based on the other conventions which China concluded in 1898. Further, Paper F should be expanded and paragraph 8 of Mr. Mervyn Jones's Paper G should, I think, go into it. We should deal in one annexed paper, which can be the result of the combined work of Mr. Mervyn Jones and Mr. Fone, with all the arguments that can be made for and against
based/