CO129-325 - Public Offices & Others - 1904 — Page 483

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

My dear Pearson,

20th May 1904

480

I am writing at a distance from London and official books of reference so I may be mistaken when in answering your reference I start with the premise that so far as my memory carries me, Great Britain has not formally adhered to the Convention on behalf of her Crown Colonies. In such case it seems to me that those colonies stand to French Indo-China in exactly the same position as all other non-Convention countries. Consequently:

1. I think that Indo-China has the right to refuse to admit refined sugar from Hong Kong whether the raw sugar came from Manila or Japan or elsewhere, unless such refusal is an offence against any standing most favoured nation treaty with us, because in the absence of such a treaty engagement Indo-China is under no obligation as to the manner in which she shall treat our colonial sugar.

2. For the same reason and also because of the provisions of the Convention, I think that Indo-China could rightly, and must, exclude Hong Kong sugar made from raw Argentine sugar.

3. If I am right in my supposition that there has not been any formal adhesion to the Convention by Great Britain on behalf of her Crown Colonies then I think that although Hong Kong should impose the Conventional countervailing duties on Argentina raw sugar there would nevertheless be no absolute obligation on Indo-China to admit Hong Kong sugar made from it.

Edit History

2026-06-02 03:01:40 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

My dear Pearson, 20th May 1904 480 I am writing at a distance from London and official books of reference so I may be mistaken when in answering your reference I start with the premise that so far as my memory carries me, Great Britain has not formally adhered to the Convention on behalf of her Crown Colonies. In such case it seems to me that those colonies stand to French Indo-China in exactly the same position as all other non-Convention countries. Consequently: 1. I think that Indo-China has the right to refuse to admit refined sugar from Hong Kong whether the raw sugar came from Manila or Japan or elsewhere, unless such refusal is an offence against any standing most favoured nation treaty with us, because in the absence of such a treaty engagement Indo-China is under no obligation as to the manner in which she shall treat our colonial sugar. 2. For the same reason and also because of the provisions of the Convention, I think that Indo-China could rightly, and must, exclude Hong Kong sugar made from raw Argentine sugar. 3. If I am right in my supposition that there has not been any formal adhesion to the Convention by Great Britain on behalf of her Crown Colonies then I think that although Hong Kong should impose the Conventional countervailing duties on Argentina raw sugar there would nevertheless be no absolute obligation on Indo-China to admit Hong Kong sugar made from it.

Baseline (Original)

My dear Pearson, 20th May 1904 480 I am writing at a distance from London and official books of reference so I may be mistaken when in answering your reference I start with the premise that so far as my memory carries me, Great Britain has not formally adhered to the Convention on behalf of her Crown Colonies. In such case it seems to me that those colonies stand to French Indo China in exactly the same position as all other non Conven- tion countries. Consequently: 1. I think that Indo China has the right to refuse to admit refined sugar from Hong Kong whether the raw sugar came from Manila or Japan or elsewhere, unless such refusal is an offence against any standing most favoured nation treaty with us, because in the absence of such a treaty engagement Indo China is under no obligation as to the manner in which she shall treat our colonial sugar. 2. For the same reason and also because of the provisions of the Convention, I think that Indo China could rightly, and must, exclude Hong Kong sugar made from raw Argentine sugar. 3. If I am right in ay supposition that there has not been any formal adhesion to the Convention by Great Britain on behalf of her crown colonies then I think that although Hong Kong should impose the Conventional countervailing duties on Argentina raw sugar there would nevertheless be no absolute obliga- tion an Indo China to admit Hong Kong sugar made from it.

2026-06-02 03:01:40 · Baseline

View content

My dear Pearson,

20th May 1904

480

I am writing at a distance from London and

official books of reference so I may be mistaken

when in answering your reference I start with the premise that so far as my memory carries me, Great Britain has not formally adhered to the Convention on

behalf of her Crown Colonies. In such case it seems

to me that those colonies stand to French Indo China

in exactly the same position as all other non Conven- tion countries. Consequently:

1. I think that Indo China has the right to refuse to admit refined sugar from Hong Kong whether the raw sugar came from Manila or Japan or elsewhere, unless such refusal is an offence against any standing most favoured nation treaty with us, because in the absence of such a treaty engagement Indo China is under no obligation as to the manner in which she shall treat our colonial sugar.

2. For the same reason and also because of the provisions of the Convention, I think that Indo China could rightly, and must, exclude Hong Kong sugar made from raw Argentine sugar.

3. If I am right in ay supposition that there has not been any formal adhesion to the Convention by Great Britain on behalf of her crown colonies then I think that although Hong Kong should impose the Conventional countervailing duties on Argentina raw sugar there would nevertheless be no absolute obliga- tion an Indo China to admit Hong Kong sugar made from

CO129-325 - Public Offices & Others - 1904 — Page 483

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note