CO885-11 — Page 197

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

།།།།། mmmm C.O. 882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

48

the original crews, and that, this demand being refused by the Com- pany, the Union with the connivance of the Canton Government main- tained by strike pickets an effective boycott of the Company's river steamers. Please see the second paragraph of my secret despatch of the 20th November, and the second paragraph of my secret despatch of the 3rd December. The circumstances in which the Company at last made a complete and humiliating surrender, dismissing their loyal crews and engaging crews forced upon them by the Canton Sea-' men's Union, are set out in paragraphs three to six of my secret despatch of the 24th Decemberf. The loyal crew of S.S. Sui An was discharged on the 16th December, that of S.S. Kinshan on the 20th December, and that of S.S. Lungshan on the 21st December. Since then the Hong Kong, Canton & Macao Steamboat Company and all the other local river-steamer companies have been entirely in the hands of the bolshevised Canton Seamen's Union.

5. As was to be expected, there has been constant trouble ever since. "The Union, flushed with its success, has exerted its authority in many ways. It has held bolshevik celebrations on board the Company's steamers not only when at Canton, but even in Hong Kong until the Hong Kong Government intervened. It has forced the companies to provide the crew in each steamer with "social rooms," really meant to serve as communist "cells." It took a leading part in endeavouring to promote in Hong Kong a thoroughly bolshevik celebration of the anniversary of the death of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. It staged a lightning strike on the S.S. Kinshan on the 30th March, and on S.S. Fatshan yesterday. On both those occasions the steamer in question had to be brought from Canton to Hong Kong by scratch naval and military crews. It compelled Mr. Wu-Hay-tong, owner of S.S. Sai On to dis- miss Captain Jenkins, the master of that vessel, in February last, because he ordered his Chinese "boy," a member of the Union, who had been grossly insubordinate, not to be allowed again into the ship's saloon (see enclosure No. 1 in iny secret despatch of the 12th February)‡.

6. So long as the bolshevised Canton Government gave its support to the Canton Seamen's Union and tolerated its unlawful activities, the Company was in no position to extricate itself from the humiliation of complete subjection to its own crews. But the coup d'état carried out by General Li Chai-sum in Canton and elsewhere on Good Friday (14th April) against communists and bolshevised labour leaders radi- cally changed the situation. The Canton Seamen's Union was one of those against which General Li took action, and it was as a protest against his action that yesterday's lightning strike, which affected 8.8. Fatshan, was declared. This was a palpable defiance of General Li and of the new régime at Canton, which at once met the order for a strike by a counter order calling it off under threat of drastic measures against all who disobeyed and against the hundreds of extremists still under arrest since the coup d'état. Officials, police and soldiers, all heavily armed, came down to the riverside wharves and told the masters of the vessels on the Hong Kong run that their ships were to leave as soon as possible. The masters pointed out that their crews were on strike and it transpired that the Canton

• Noe. 43 and 44 in Eastern No. 144. † No. 45 in Eastern No. 144.

‡ No. 3,

19

Seamen's Union had failed to notify its members of the order of the Canton Government countermanding the strike. Thereupon detectives and police were at once despatched to scour the town for the crews with such success that, although in each case a certain number of men were left behind, the S. S. Tung On was able to start at 3.30 p.m., with over five hundred passengers, while the S.S. Langshan left at 3 p.m.,

her usual time, and the S.S. Yurt On also left during the afternoon. In no case was there any trouble with the crews, for the men are sick of strikes and had left their ships most unwillingly.

. In these circumstances I held yesterday afternoon at Government House another meeting of the Directors of the Steamboat Company. There were present, in addition to myself, Admiral Boyle, Mr. Southorn, Sir J. Kemp, Mr. Hallifax, Mr. Weall (Chairman), Mr. Paterson, Sir Robert Ho Tung, Mr. Alves, Mr. Johnson and Mr. N. S. Brown. Mr. Brown, who since the meeting of the 20th April had consulted his principals (Messrs. Butterfield & Swire) in London by telegram, informed me that he was in receipt of telegraphic instruc tious that the striking crew of S.S. Kinshan should be reinstated: and a majority of the Directors took the view that the striking crew should be re-engaged, with the exception of any known extremists, not directly through the Canton Seamen's Union but through the Compradore of the S.S. Taishan, no wages being paid for the period during which the crew had been absent.

. As this step amounts practically to another complete surrender to the Canton Seamen's Union, at a time when there is in the opinion

of myself and my principal advisers no need for such surrender, but on the contrary a good opportunity (in view of the Canton coup d'état) of making head successfully against the tyranny of this Union, I set before the Directors of the Company in the strongest terms possible the dangers to themselves and to the Colony of the course which they proposed, in deference to the wishes of Messrs. Butterfield & Swire, to pursue. I regret to say that I failed to move them from their decision, three of the Directors (Messrs. Weall, Paterson and Alves) being in favour of reinstatement and two (Mr. Johnson and Sir Robert Ho Tung) being in favour of a non-union erew. My regret is the greater in that it became quite clear during the discussion that the Directors, in view of the policy of His Majesty's Government on the Yang-tsze, had lost all faith in the ability or even the will of His Majesty's Government to help them in a fight against Chinese violence and illegality, or against the tyranny of the bolshevised Seamen's Union. A defeatist spirit had been engendered in them which I found it impossible to remove. I deplore this decision more than I can say. It indicates not so much a complete failure to appreciate the fact that this Union has been one of the chief weapons of the Chinese Communist Party in its campaign for the destruction of British rights in China, but a feeling of helplessness and a despair of any support from His Majesty's Government. Moreover, I cannot help feeling that the decision has been influenced by the parsimonious treatment accorded to the Steamboat Company by His Majesty's Government in respect of their service during the period of the boycott: (see my confidential despatch of the 16th March, 1927).*

* C. 30018/27 [No. 16]: not printed.

197