CO882-(6-8) — Page 596

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

274

of the 26th of September last, respecting the question of naval requirements in connection with the transfer of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company's undertaking to the Colonial Government.

2. It is not easy to understand exactly what it is that the Admiralty desire. As you are aware, the undertaking has been taken over, not with a view to Admiralty requirements, but solely for purposes connected with the commercial interests of the Port. It has been laid down most emphatically that the undertaking is to be worked as a commercial concern, and, that beyond getting the benefit of the loan of the Government credit when required, it must be self supporting.

If any exceptional treatment is, in these circumstances, given to the Admiralty, it must obviously be at the expense of the commerce and shipping of Singapore, already heavily taxed for Imperial defence, as I have pointed out in my despatcht forwarding the revised defence scheme.

3. The questions referred to in the second paragraph of your despatch* must, therefore, be dealt with by the Board exactly on the same lines as if the Admiralty were a private customer. The Board has no storage nor wharfage which it cannot utilize to the full extent, and if any exceptional rights and privileges are granted to the Admiralty, I am sure you will agree that that Department must pay for such rights and privileges sufficient to compensate the Board for any loss and inconvenience resulting to its ordinary business. There is no desire to make an exceptional profit out of the Admiralty business, but, at the same time, it cannot, in the circumstances, claim any exceptional treatment without paying for it, and I have no doubt the matters referred to can easily be arranged.

4. The question of emergency does not appear to present any difficulty. Full powers are vested in the Governor for dealing with such an event, and if it should occur, I am sure no Governor would hesitate to use them so far as might be required to ensure the speediest possible coaling of His Majesty's ships.

275

would, unless he took no part in the proceedings, be mischievous, as representing out- side interference in matters of looal concern.

+

Such a change could only be made by an amendment of the law, and I have no hesitation in saying that any attempt to bring about such an amendment would be cer- tain to fail. Public opinion would be unanimously against it, no reason could be given for it, and, instead of being of any advantage to the Admiralty, it would prove even more detrimental to their interests than to those of the commercial and shipping interests of Singapore.

I have, &c.,

41885

No. 288.

JOHN ANDERSON.

COLONIAL OFFICE to MESSRS. SUTTON, OMMANNEY, and RENDALL. [Answered by No. 315.]

last.

GENTLEMEN,

Downing Street, November 25, 1905. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to transmit to you copies of two despatches from the Governor of the Straits Settlements respecting the profits of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, for the half-year ended the 30th of June You will observe that Sir J. Anderson suggests that the question of the amount to be paid over to the Company on this account should be referred by consent to the Arbitration Court in London. I am to request that you will take this proposal into consideration, and, if you concur in its advisability, that you will take such steps as are possible in order to give effect to it.

to

42434

That is already recognized in the defence scheme and, as the undertaking be carried on on the same lines as hitherto, I do not see why the question should have been raised. The Board will, of course, in the event of its business being dislocated by special interference by the Government on behalf of the Navy, have the same right to compensation as the Company would have had.

5. The claim put forward by the Admiralty to have a representative on the Board appears to me to be altogether indefensible.

The Colony pays its full quota to Imperial defence. Neither the Admiralty nor His Majesty's Government are contributing a cent to the cost of expropriation or the cost of re-organizing and extending the undertaking. No naval officer is ever here for more than two or three months during his commission, and of what use his pre- sence on the Board would be in those circumstances I cannot comprehend. Since I have been here we have several times for a month or six weeks had no man-of-war at all here, and even when they are here nominally they have to visit Penang and other outposts and sometimes Labuan and Borneo.

6. The interest of the Admiralty in this port in time of peace is, under existing conditions, occasional and transient. If this was a permanent naval station with large local naval establishments like Hong Kong, Malta or Gibraltar, the suggestion might be plausible, though even then it would be difficult to justify interference by the Admiralty in the management of a commercial concern to which they are only cus- tomers like any private shipping firm, and towards the capital of which they have not contributed in any form.

Politically, any such suggestion would have a deplorable effect. The foolish and ill-informed articles in the English Press on the subject of the taking over of the undertaking have, in spite of strenuous denials here, produced the impression in many quarters that it is an attempt to squeeze a practical addition to the contribution already made to the Imperial defence by the Colony. To put an Admiralty repre- sentative on the Board would give colour to this impression and would inevitably lead the members of the Board to treat in a suspicious, if not absolutely hostile, spirit any proposal affecting the Admiralty. In their own interests, therefore, the Admiralty would be well advised to refrain from making any such suggestion. In the ordinary work of the Dock Board a naval officer, whose stay here is so brief, would be of no assistance whatever, and, apart from what I have already said, his presence

• No. 273.

† 41131 not printed.

SIR,

No. 289.

I am, &c.,

ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received November 30, 1905.)

C. P. LUCAS.

[Copy to Governor, December 8, 1905. Confidential. L.F.]

[Answered by No. 293.]

Admiralty, November 29, 1905. WITH reference to your letter of the 15th February, 1905, No. 4148/1905,† with enclosure, relative to the expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company's property at Singapore by the Straits Settlements Government; I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to request that you will lay the following facts before the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his consideration.

2. Early in 1904 my Lords decided it was necessary to increase the reserve stock

of coal and patent fuel on the China Station, and arrangements had to be made to store part thereof at Singapore.

In March of that year, in order to accommodate a cargo of patent fuel then on the way to the station, the Senior Naval Officer, Singapore, authorised the erection of a shed by the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company on their property.

3. The shed was not ready for occupation when the cargo arrived in July, 1904, and arrangements were made to store the patent fuel on the Admiralty property at Pulo Brani.

4. Although such cargo was stored on Admiralty property, my Lords did not consider it prudent, in naval interest, to stop the work of completing the shed, and it was finally completed and ready to receive fuel on the 31st March, 1905.

5. The terms now proposed by the Company for renting the shed are a rent of 5 cents per ton of coal or patent fuel per month, with a minimum rent of $100 per month; the term to be for 12 years, or should the Admiralty no longer desire to rent the shed, the Company are prepared to accept a sum of $3,000 (say, £273) as com- pensation in lieu thereof.

90305

Nos. 282 and 286.

† No. 49A.

2 N

1

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH--NOT TO

276