fact worse cff there would then be a case for considera- tion by that Government and by the Secretary of State in consultation with the other Departments interested. If a letter were written to this Department on that basis, he would under take that it should be referred to Hong Kong, but of course he had no authority to give any undertaking as to the Secretary of State's decision on any such claim.
H.B. 9.11.22.
R.S
2x 23732/17.
Bee Gov./27405/1919)
205
0.A.G./53212/H.K.
The petitioners' flest was requisitioned by the Hong Kong Government in March 1918 under the instructions contained in our telegram and despatch on 50010/1917. The ships were requisitioned on behalf of His Majesty's Government under Royal Prerogative (see 46922/1918) by either the Naval or Colonial Government authorities.
The question of the requisitioning of ships
on the Shanghai Register was dealt with on 10067/1918.
The profits. the scheme*,
for ee the
petitioners complain of their retention by the Government of Hong Kong) are the perquisite of the Government of Hong Kong)
Colony in view of the Ministry of Shipping's letter of 16th March 1918 (13479/1918) and our telegram thereon.
As regards the rates paid to the owners of requisitioned ships see paragraph 2 of 71255/1919. The petitioners actually got batter terms than owners elsewhere under local schemes. see 37033/1919.
In the case of the Eastern Shipping Company
in the Straits the Government refused to grant a fiat Jon their Petition. That was not so in this Hong Kong There was delay for which the Officer
Administering the Government does not state the
a frat reason in his despatch 53212, but it was finally
granted in this and in all other cases in Hong Kong.
The Institution
Ass
Wellana'
A
in 2092/21.
of the Test perundings
divincul
was fully
$45.
an behalf
muuted
the lay provided by
against the A47 onl mined a judgment The Indemnity Cooley,
CA89.
T
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.