CO129-309 - Public Offices & Others - 1901 — Page 207

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

206

6.

a wholly different plea for an increased Imperial allowance

the necessity for additional postal expenditure at Shanghai;

and he encloses a report (returned herewith) purporting to

show for the year 1900 an estimated loss at Shanghai of

$6,317, and a small balance of revenue over expenditure,

for all the Agencies in China, of $492.54. But examination of this document reveals the fact that a sum of

$29,975 or about £3000 is included under the head of

expenditure as the share of the Peninsular and Oriental

subsidy assignable to the Agencies. This entry is incorrect

because, as has already been stated, the contribution payable by Hong Kong is solely in respect of correspondence to

and from Hong Kong itself, the share of the subsidy

assignable to correspondence exchanged with the Agencies

being borne by the Imperial Post Office. If the report

be amended accordingly it would seem that a profit amounting

to $30,467 accrues to Hong Kong. In the case of

Shanghai the profit would apparently be $6,534.

In the

light of these facts the grounds adduced for increasing the

Imperial contribution disappear.

As

Edit History

2026-06-01 06:08:35 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
206 6. a wholly different plea for an increased Imperial allowance the necessity for additional postal expenditure at Shanghai; and he encloses a report (returned herewith) purporting to show for the year 1900 an estimated loss at Shanghai of $6,317, and a small balance of revenue over expenditure, for all the Agencies in China, of $492.54. But examination of this document reveals the fact that a sum of $29,975 or about £3000 is included under the head of expenditure as the share of the Peninsular and Oriental subsidy assignable to the Agencies. This entry is incorrect because, as has already been stated, the contribution payable by Hong Kong is solely in respect of correspondence to and from Hong Kong itself, the share of the subsidy assignable to correspondence exchanged with the Agencies being borne by the Imperial Post Office. If the report be amended accordingly it would seem that a profit amounting to $30,467 accrues to Hong Kong. In the case of Shanghai the profit would apparently be $6,534. In the light of these facts the grounds adduced for increasing the Imperial contribution disappear. As
Baseline (Original)
206 6. a wholly different plea for an increased Imperial allowance the necessity for additional postal expenditure at Shanghai; and he encloses a report (returned herewith) purporting to show for the year 1900 an estimated loss at Shanghai of $6,317, and a small balance of revenue over expenditure, for all the Agencies in China, of $492.54. But examina- tion of this document reveals the fact that a sum of $29,975 or about £3000 is included under the head of expenditure as the share of the Peninsular and Oriental subsidy assignable to the Agencies. This entry is incorrect because, as has already been stated, the contribution pay- able by Hong Kong is solely in respect of correspondence to and from Hong Kong itself, the share of the subsidy assignable to correspondence exchanged with the Agencies being borne by the Imperial Post Office. If the report be amended accordingly it would seem that a profit amounting to $30,467 accrues to Hong Kong. In the case of Shanghai the profit would apparently be $6,534. In the light of these facts the grounds adduced for increasing the Imperial contribution disappear. As
2026-06-01 06:08:35 · Baseline
View content

206

6.

a wholly different plea for an increased Imperial allowance

the necessity for additional postal expenditure at Shanghai;

and he encloses a report (returned herewith) purporting to

show for the year 1900 an estimated loss at Shanghai of

$6,317, and a small balance of revenue over expenditure,

for all the Agencies in China, of $492.54. But examina-

tion of this document reveals the fact that a sum of

$29,975 or about £3000 is included under the head of

expenditure as the share of the Peninsular and Oriental

subsidy assignable to the Agencies. This entry is incorrect

because, as has already been stated, the contribution pay-

able by Hong Kong is solely in respect of correspondence to

and from Hong Kong itself, the share of the subsidy

assignable to correspondence exchanged with the Agencies

being borne by the Imperial Post Office. If the report

be amended accordingly it would seem that a profit amounting

to $30,467 accrues to Hong Kong. In the case of

Shanghai the profit would apparently be $6,534.

In the

light of these facts the grounds adduced for increasing the

Imperial contribution disappear.

As

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.