take it that this is a matter for the account
Dept. The def sw?
wessary action
(3)
so
to them for
hgra
it to than
All
/ understand that La Su 2. Apword
Laut
wishes to know whether the rexcame from
mAw
the new taxation will be equal to half the loss caused by the spuim poling This is agortion we can't answer: The
amount
estinales
Iresemme put down in the 1960
mz
punly conjectural,
a wed
account for the year are
know how much actual
Im
amy
Carl
526
Then ill wotally be perther heary loves
osmin
wing to the moaned price & saw which int recessitate some whef hing
to the Farmers
ނ
concesmen
demine ton of revenue from the farm
BR
Mr. Fiddes
It is important if this goes to the Cabi- !
net to drop the mention of the specific sum of
£12,000 and to go for one half of the direct
tus the y
10 it
loss of opium revenue, whatever it may prove
years 1910
м
until the
to be. For two reasons
we shan't
Westme
they for.
our antention is that the
grant in the settled purely in conson
the hors caused the opeim whin; a
&
the fact that fuch taxation how to he
and is not really relevant to the dispute
with the Treasury.
that without an
This tile hours shows
add it has
taratin
Any
be
hew Ju
of
Imperial front, there
with be an exhinated defiect in 1911
$110,ma Labas at 1/9th $. $110,000,0
(2) a decision
(1) The Farmers may default or claim relief on account
of the high price of opium. One half the direct
loss in the years 1911 and 1912 may then be much
more than £12,000.
on the principle of one half the direct
loss will help us in getting a grant for the S.S.
We have already asked the Treas. to pay a sum re-
presenting one half the loss.
If the Cabinet will decide this in our favour
on principle, the Treas. will have much reason to
regret that they did not
sary while they were in the way with him
ASC
Sir & Hosewood
I agreed There was no pomitiilich of
tel.
A
the purposed, the matter being settled
agree with their adver-
!!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.