CO129-595-2 Financial compensation for married officers whose families were evacuated in 1940-1 21-2-1946 - 31-1-1947 — Page 26

26

4. Se are not anxious to gote positive instances, but respectfully suggest that it is an acknowledged and indiaputable fact that a very large number of Govorime, t and Coueroinï families disobeyed the order either by ignoring it from start to finish, or after obtaining temporary exeption reusining on after the reason for the said exemption ad expired, or by returning to the Colony under various pretexta or subterfuges following varying periods of absence and defying eviction. This is proved alone by the number of children confined in Stanley Interment Camp, at one time it is recalled amounting to 288, and by the large number of aged women who were not and could not possibly be of use for essential service before and still less during hostilities, the threat of which caused the ovacuation order.

5. During the 18 months before the alege of the Colony r. Calthrop receivod a mall percentage rebate on the customary 7 deduction for quarters, sounting if reueubered correctly to some Tong Kong $20 or 130, Mr. Crutroll received the usual Lodging Allowance in lieu of rovision of GovernKent uartern. e therefore suffered financial loss compared with the pen who sit er legitimetely, or worse still with no right, vere peraitted to keep their wives and children in the colony. No form of separation allowance, vaa granted us, but though this at the time offered a just grieva.co, we took no netion in joining a society ford in protest on both financial and moral grounds as, though sympathising with the booiety'a alie, we felt dabarred from doing ao as Coverzeent servants.

6. It is apparently now proposed to deduct the full allowance we made our fundlies from the arrears of salary due to us, whereas the (en who kept their families in the Colony

rill