89
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TELEC.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
>
166
the admission of war guilt in the Treaty of Versailles, and the Alabama case, and the activities of Irish-Americans in the U.S.A.. I said we were not now concerned with the question of morai responsibility for the commencement of the strike and boycott, but with their international responsibility, as a Government, for the continuance of the boycott.
As we seemed to be making no progress I asked what he sug gested should be done in order to avoid the imputation which he feared. He suggested that a letter should be written announcing the appointments and stating that the Canton Government would act as mediators but would guarantee that any settlement arrived I did not accept at by the six delegates would be carried out. this suggestion. He remarked at some stage in the conversation that the Canton Government, in their view, were under no obliga- tion to end the boycott.
We seemed to be reaching a deadlock, so I said that we were anxious to help them and would consider any form of words which he would draft and put forward. It is, of course, possible that Mr. C. C. Wu intentionally created the impression of an approach. ing deadlock.
As Mr. C. C. Wu seemed to abandon the initiative at this stage. I took an opportunity of putting the Hongkong point of view as follows.
I said that we considered the continuance of the boycott a terrible mistake, that it was bad for Canton as well as for Hong- kong, and that it was so unnatural and artificial that it was bound to fail. I also pointed out that its cessation was desirable in the interests of good government and that the prosperity which would follow would be the best antidote to disorder.
I said that we considered ourselves the injured party, that we did not see why we should be asked to pay, and that we would not pay anything. Mr. C. C. Wu said that Hongkong was not the cause of the strike and that as regards May it was the fault of the Shanghai Municipal Council and as regards June the fault of the British Consular authorities on Shameen.
I quoted a recent speech by him in which he said that the strike must not fail, and I asked him what was the object of the strike. He said that it was the downfall of Imperialism, i.e., of unequal treatment. I said that Hongkong could do nothing. He replied that if Hongkong accepted all the strikers' terms and granted equal treatment that would be enough for Hongkong.
I impressed upon him that the Hongkong Government would neither pay itself to the Strike Committee or to anyone else- nor countenance any payment by anyone else. This seemed to be a shock to him. He said that the Hongkong Government had changed its policy. I said that at one time the Hongkong Govern- ment was not prepared to step in and prevent a settlement on the lines then suggested, but that now they were not prepared to countenance such payment. I also said that Hongkong was determined to stand firm, that much in Hongkong was permanent, and that in any case some contraction of our activities was better
167
than loss of honour. I repeated my conviction that the boycott was bound to fail sooner or later, though it would do much damage to both sides while it lasted.
Mr. C.
We then proceeded to discuss the "strikers' terms." C. Wu had before him a portfolio from which he drew documents from time to time; one at least of these documents contained matter supplied by the Strike Committee. His copy of the strikers' terms seemed to be somewhat different from that from which my translation was made. The usual things were said on both sides about these terms. I mention below only any new points made.
Mr. C. C. Wu inquired about the closing of the Hip Chun and the Moulders' Union. I had no information on this but said that I would inquire. He asked if any unions which had been closed could be re-opened. I replied that they could if they satisfied us that they would not be used for unlawful purposes.
As regards meetings I said that at present a permit was re- quired for a Chinese public meeting, but that this was a provision of an obsolete Ordinance which we had long intended to revise, and that it was possible that what we would substitute would be an obligation to notify the police beforehand in the case of every public meeting. The object would be to enable the police (1) to take precautions for keeping order, and (2) to send a reporter, if necessary, to attend the meeting.
As regards the right of association, I said that the Kuomintang is not prohibited in Hongkong, that there is no prohibition of political associations so long as they keep within the law.
On the Peak question, I said that the Chinese might have Mount Cameron to-morrow, exclusively, if they wanted it. (This was actually discussed at the time of the passing of the Peak District (Residence) Ordinance, 1918.)
Mr. C. C. Wu spoke about ** 'patriotic demonstrations." I said that there was no objection to them so long as they kept within the law. Traffic considerations alone made it necessary to retain police control. He said that it was not possible to deal with such matters by an agreement in black and white. What he was con- cerned with was the spirit and policy. As an example of the wrong spirit he mentioned that when Dr. Sun passed through Hongkong in November, 1924, permission to fire crackers in the harbour was refused by the police.
I said that we would give sympathetic consideration to all these points.
He said that they objected to deportation as an executive act. I said that we could not consider that matter.
He said that Young Sai Ngam and Fung Tsz Yau were deported because they were members of the Kuomintang and sympathised with the Canton Government. I said that I had no knowledge of those cases.