closure 2.
18th February, 1981;
7.
108
In answer to this communication a letter (see enclosure 2) was addressed to the Consul-General at Shanghai in which it was pointed out that the New Territories are in every respect British Territory and the request for removal of the house and lines was repeated.
In due course a reply was received from the Director-General (see enclosure 3) in which the contention that the Telegraph Lines and Poles are private property was repeated. The Director-General added that he had called a meeting of shareholders and that they had expressed the opinion that compliance with the request of the Hongkong Government was impossible.
Gr.closure 3.
28th April, 1904.
June, 1904.
enclosure 5.
23rd July, 1904.
8.
To this communication the Hongkong Government replied (see enclosure 4) that as the entire control of the Chinese Telegraphs had been recently taken over by the Chinese Government it could not regard the Administration as a purely commercial enterprise. It was also pointed out that the name (printed in large Roman type on the envelopes supplied by the Administration) by which the Administration is known, viz. the Imperial Chinese Telegraph Administration supported that view.
9.
To this letter two Directors of the Chinese Telegraph Administration replied through His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai (see enclosure 5) pointing out that in the Chinese name of the Administration the word 'Imperial' did not appear and reiterating that since the capital of the Administration was subscribed and still held by private individuals the Administration must be regarded as a private commercial undertaking, although the Administration
Que
closure 2.
18th February, 1981;
7.
108
In answer to this communication a letter
(see enclosure 2) was addressed to the Consul-General at
Shanghai in which it was pointed out that the New Territories
are in every respect British Territory and the request for
removal of the house and lines was repeated.
In due course a reply was received from
the Director-General (see enclosure 3) in which the contention
that the Telegraph Lines and Poles are private property was
repeated. The Director-General added that he had called a
meeting of shareholders and that they had expressed the opinion
that compliance with the request of the Hongkong Goverment
was impossible.
Gr.closure 3.
28th Abril, 1904.
June, 1904.
one losure it
onclosure 5.
2320 July, 1904.
8.
To this communication the Hongkong Govern-
ment replied (see enclosure 4) that as the entire control of
the Chinese Telegraphs had been recently taken over by the
Chinese Government it could not regard the Administration as
*
a purely commercial enterprise. It was also pointed out that
the name (printed in large Roman type on the envelopes supplied
by the Administration) by which the Administration is known,
viz. the Imperial Chinese Telegraph Administration supported
that view.
9.
To this letter two Directors of the
Chinese Telegraph Administration replied through His Majesty's
Consul-General at Shanghai (see enclosure 5) pointing out
that in the Chinese name of the Administration the word
'Imperial' did not appear and reiterating that since the
capital of the Amministration was subscribed and still held
by private individuals the Administration must be regarded as
a private commercial undertaking, although the Administra-
-tion
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.