CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 17

1

15

It is unjustifiable because it is not in

accordance with either the actual language of the Treaty

or the intentions of those who framed it. In a letter

of 12th January (185 C) Foreign Office say "It was, in

the Secretary of State's view always realised at

Washington that in the case of ports like Hong Kong,

which is at the same time a naval station and an

important commercial port, it was impossible to forbid

the increase of the commercial facilities of the port,

such as docks, on the ground that the increased facili-

ties would be available for warships. It is therefore

only "naval facilities" which are dealt with in Article

19". (Foreign Office then proceed to reject the strange

claim by Admiralty that an extension of the naval dock

would be admissible). This Foreign Office view is borne

out by the printed record of the Conference, and by the

wording of the treaty. The word "naval" before "facili-

ties" would be quite meaningless otherwise.

It is therefore contended that Article XIX

of the Treaty presente no obstacle to future harbour

development by the Government of Hong Kong.

But in sand of the

Adminally letter

of

16k Jebe. it may

be later as settled

Vend of

all beft!

concernd

H.B.

16.2.23.