"
}
For
9649
411
4.
in China and that it was therefore inexpedient to proceed with the question of the purchase of the buildings at Shanghai and of the fittings at that and other Agencies.
My predecessor enquired in his Confidential despatch of 19th February, 1914, when these proposals were to be expected but no answer was received and, the war intervening, the matter was allowed to remain in abeyance.
5. I would now request that these claims may be revived. I am quite willing to agree to the suggestion of His Majesty's Divisional Architect that this Government should surrender its interest in the building to His Majesty's Goverment but the proposal that the price to be paid should be the value of the buildings as determined in 1910 less depreciation plus interest at an agreed rate appears to me to be unsound.
6.
We have received no rent from the British Post Office for the use of the building since 1911 nor have we been given any share of the rent received by the British Post Office for the letting of the upper half of the premises to a firm of solicitors.
7.
It seems to me that there are two possible methods of determining what payment should be made, (a) that the sale should as suggested by His Majesty's Division- al Architect be made as from 1st January, 1923, this Government receiving the value of the buildings as determin- ed in 1910 less depreciation (or alternatively the present value of the buildings) but that instead of interest, the payment of which would seem to be illogical if the sale is only to be regarded as taking effect from 1st January, 1923 - we should receive a fair rent from the Imperial Post Office for their use of the building since 1st January, 191].
8. There would however be some difficulty in
settling what was a fair rent during these years and I would prefer the simpler course (b) - that the sale should
be regarded as having been effected from lat January, 1911,
and
}
¡
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.