CO129-435 - Governor Sir May & Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1916 [9-11] — Page 180

$1.

I JL

{

1.

177

****

tida

Latrole? „men ode

1.

cantRuda 100%, mi3 of god I

DOGU OL 75 opere 20 pa avęs 14 6.

là xàilòng.

Ort

: ลง Tiati

Staffan of 07

ATGE JOSËN JÓLALLE DO ZUG ta

د

0

ng si a

J

I

JUD

31

- I

IT

L =43 CDIJOR 100%,

VE SEX voy Jad

10 Mi R ku wo by a natu

AL: TO21-Desen az bosseży od

9005 TODE 10 VIEJO HAS OJ

VA I LAm nişani Jonson I

1J 210 JUNE# #Idtavog si Kalds

JO..

ウ

"

Sot andagen 4a beogoV8-4.

CECE AND -mes wod-

011 banhadeh od ang k

I 48 JaḍT .I

Tandemİz Unnék A TAJO O CONN

To this I would reply that: -

•

(a) When the appointment no Abrisient Fngineer was offered to me I stipulated that my ngramont në regards pry, &c, should be exactly the arme ns that entered into by an officer engaged in England, and that it should include a clause to the effect that if my services

were satisfactory I should, at the termination of the ngrement, be

transferred to the permanent staff wi „hout question, ity agreement was

prepared necordingly mnd I was thus neither considered nor treated

except as an officer engaged in England.

(b) There would appear to be no ranson why a loenll, employed man should be pinoad on a different footing to one repoinuad alsewhere provided he has had the raquilite training and is qualified for the

Fost.

(0) My previous service in Hongkong, from May 103, then I

arrived in the Colony, to December 31st. 1909, wok ne čurveyor on the

R. N. Civil staff, my duties throughout this period being of a profeza- ional nature (Arohi tecture and quantity Surveying). Prior to this I had

sat for the necessary qualifying examination at Whitehall and waE

oholen for the post out of a number of candidates.

(4) If I am to reodre different treatment to other Engineers who have been engaged locally I shall be losing the benefide which I was definitely promised on engagement and without the proaid of which it is unlikely that I should have given up the position I then held.

That dr. Duncan's pay is higher than mine and ht. been higher

during practically the whole of his service. I would submi the ti

(e) Mr. Duncan's insonu appears higher than mine merdy owing to the foot that hi. duty pay is £140.0.0. per annum whilst mihe is but

2.

£50.0.0.

(b) Mr. Dunoan' ■ salary do less than mine as it is 230.0.0. per

annum whilst mine it at prezent £130.0.0. (I reach my maxim of

8480.0.0. in January 1918).

(*) Duty pay should not be considered with salary for the pur-

poses of seniority as the former lapses during an officer' é absence on

Page 180Page 181