expressed
هه
Long
ago
ai
The 28th June
(second end. to (8) on the other hand &
we know
erough
Babout the situation
in China to appreciate that the objections
to
for proceeding with the legislation proposed
at (1) and (II) are
likely to be
stranger now
Ihan they were
5 months
ago.
The case of the "Dholera", which is
mentioned in (1), is the subject of
number
a
terminating with of
tels. (an (50) on 53838/11/39, which I have now obtained and attached, (54) sson that file is particularly interesting in connexion with the subject here under conson, and shows that in so for as The Japan use
known to consider them.
selves entitled to the rights of
The rights of the Chinese
Gait, under the Treaty of Tienkain, there still exists the edesmedtrop deterring possibility of The ship's being seized if the calls at an unopened port. It was the absence of
deterent and the necessity for
Such a
a
replacing it by refusal of clearance from Hong Kong that frompted (1). In (ii), which is subsequent to (54) on 53838/11/29. The ground seems to have shifted slightly. It seems to be argued that ships which are given clearance
are entitled to expect protection (though I do not know what grounds exist for this arqument) and that The Harbow Master should give or withhold clearance for unopened ports on The basis
whether the ship deseves such protection.
of
"Allhone
Page
Page
9
Yes
1.BW.
are un-
ge 9
But Although the Japanese likely to invoke the Tientsin Treaty
in cases where it is the Chinese Customs Admin. not themselves or their puppets who suffer by the smuggling which
be alleged, there are,
now
may nevertheless, I believe,
now
no open ports other Than Treaty Ports which are not in Japanese hands its
At The Customs Admin. Het at ports occupied on the Japs, is subject to their tobrance of supervision, no one stands to gain by the proposed Hong Kong legis- lation except the Japanese
and those British authorities who might thereby, be saved the trouble - entarassment of investigating rprotesting against certain seiswer by The Japanese. As this was to all practical purposes the position in July when (8) was written, I think we can write to 1k. as suggested al#HAA in Mr Galsworth's minute without consulting the fo again, though we should send then
coper of our the despatch & of (11). The caves, should also go to the M/S, rece. 10).
I do not think, however, that we need ask for the position to be expluried In Ambassador in China to the Chin- ese authorities. It is true that in June the latter asked for authority be do so, but I think it
can be left to him the EO. to decide whether it is necessar
to do it I should say it was not. The above is subject to such
now
advice
ag
Mer Duncan
man
be prepared
lavo
x
as well
af
to give: there are questions of breath- interpretation involved, questions of fact policy.
CAS
ge 9
Page
Munk ur can
Siquife, um-Driathranu.
A.15.
아
As regards the non-disallowance
The Ordice. at (9) I see no objection
Presumably
if The Legal Acuicer agrees.
We...
should
also send copies of (9)
rench. It the M/s saying that it will
Yes
2.52.
not be disallowed.
10
VisAndrews
2.xii. 39
e 10
Page
The questions raised by chaft bill appen is be
the chapt
political ruttn
shipping and
than
I can
purely
see no
leason from the latter point of view is object to the action proposed
-
I see that M.M.D.
concured in Nold in the proposed
rejection of
the bill.
The Ordinance enclosed in
No q appears is
is deal only with
small craft, not-likely to be of much concern to M/shipping,
and I
afree with propotal is
signify u.d.a. and much to inform M / Shipping of action liken
1.ZW. Mimms $.12.39
The wording of Article XVII of
the Treaty of Tisutsui
(1858) seems to be clear enough; hat the position
1
to-day is, of course, Essentially diffrent from what it was when the Treaty was concluded.
e 10Page 11
11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.