CO129-422 - Governor Sir May - 1915 [5-6] — Page 625

3

I 0

nemtinged afro otíduq

„zrer „EkzqA „d‡èt gmox zoox

PY

Public Works Department,

Hong Kong 20th. April, 1915.

613

-

elodw edit,tnatant „d‡åṛ end to rettel quoy of yiger mi

nerfw yonelieоxy BIH еnoted enew botata mletedt atost edt to

a'yonelfeox elk Tobru saw tasi toďmevox.bas erit to nejjel zUOV

.moljszebleroo

bra molila .IM neewteď sban reed and moldontjaib on .s

erit of notłomɑrq doldw to edab edt of bragen ddiw TeeToy

Bar nolit .TM .Bednarz need sad 12101mg bnoj obarƉ I to ner

ni ebang won edt to praise mumtxam eitt boðmarg need revewod at meed beebnt bad ek .¿ti tebro Isteneð Ktiw sonSBIOTOS 10% nemiloqqs wen aid to valss Istint end to sqteoor awwib yino evan voy .nottomong gulvtepen of antiq shady No4 Ens Eret iedodol .dat end sonia 0253 do yusisz JneseTI THỚT

Beltline ton era wey ‚27) TAB70 [stened d‡lw eonsbrosos mi .taf edt Iljnu Jeoq war quoy to yzsiaa munizam ait evleoer of

.woy at bej so truemos qbaazis as ‚ätet zedotoo

,112,8 I

VIIMISESt Brox

maritano . .\ba

.BOW ofidua to zodoexic

4

.yaxɔal „b .*

sir,

me

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter No.308 dated 16th. April, 1915, in which you inform

made between Mr. Dillon and me that no distinction was in regard to the dates at which our promotions should take effect and that Mr. Dillon's maximum salary was granted in

accordance with General Order No. 115.

In reply thereto I regret very much that I did not make my meaning olear in my petition dated 14th. April, 1915 with regard to the opening paragraph thereof, a portion of

which, reads as follows:-

"With all due deference to the Government, I respectfully *submit that no distinotion should be made between "Mr. Dillon and me with regard to the date at which "our promotion should take effect".

In the remainder of that petition I endeavoured, in

my humble way, to show what would have been the difference of our respective positions had we not been kept waiting more that three years for a reply to our petition dated

February, 1911.

Had our petition of that date (1.8. February, 1911) been refused in 1911 and on reconsideration been approved in the same year (which really did happen in 1914) we would have been entitled, under the new scale, to receive £250 in that year and £270 in 1914, three years later, and this without prejudice to General Order No.115.

To