thi etter, that I co ld not agree, prima facie, that this
verhol enza within the scope of the agreement initia
by myself and Br. okosuki on iath Petruary 1ont, a copy of
which was enclosed in sy despatch N. 40 of 30th February
athan hal, sich was copied
to Your Excellency as my espatch #. 20 of 1939.
i
plained my reasons, whioh cero that st
›l ned to "Over
between onton and Hongkong.
I am
ment had never
guler Japanese passenger service
It will hel
omood that
r. kesaki specifically indicated what he meant by the
type of vessel to call at Hongkong, i.e. # ve sel owned
or chartered by the
rernment end eerrying da
erTwent
atoren (aeeny toler
160 to Coʻriander-in-Chief of
December 30th last repeated to you as my telegr
30. 83
They were to be penitted to onll at Hongkong on their way
to or from Grntonio places outalie coh so
Japan and Formoss. The reference to an
shuttle service was intro (uced
hanghai, Amoy,
cocosalonel
kosaki's regreat
since he explained that, owing to the uncertainty which
necessarily existed with regard to the exact movements of
these vessels (as defined above) it might fom time to
txe be a convenience to them to send one of them to Hong-
kong from -Aton -nd then return her here before she started
her journey back shence she came. a regards a regular
passenger service, quite apart from the above objection,
it was clearly the intention of the
reesent that the
pasoen era carried by the J-panese ships in question should
De restricted, from Hongkong, to Japenese, hinese and
others wanted in connection with the rehabilitation af, or
with ol11tory or navel cervicon at onton and, to Hon.kansa
attached to the Japanes
to peraono in 111n droo
military and naval services. (plesse see your telegram to
me No. 58 of 82nd December, 1938 and my reply, telegram No.241
76
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.