X
2.
1.W. (L.) 1034/48
ear Jerron,
Copy to H. Palmer, Esq., Colonial Office
sunity
69
116
1.2.(L).
26th May, 1948
Thank you for your letter of 24th instant (C/31/1717(1.7.)). (68)
enclose a copy of our telegram 191301,ay to Commodore, (64)
This
Hong Tong, which I think clearly explains the Admiralty position. is in accordance with the line I took at the meeting of 7th 'ay and you will see that paragraph 2(v) excludes denial requisitions. The Admiralty will be guided by the finistry of "ransport as to the compensation payable under the requisitioning terns for ships taken up for naval purposes but it is certainly not our intention to accept any liability for ships taken up other than for naval purposes.
3.
I imagine you have in mind the possibility of a difference in policy between Departments in the case of craft requisitioned for use, and destroyed for denial reasons whilst such requisition was still in force. I gathered from what was mid at the meeting that the Per Office would repudiate liability in such cases. The wairalty attitude is that it would be for the Tinistry of Transport to determine whether there is any naval liability under the Charter arty temas deened to apply.
It seems to me that it will not be possible for Departients to take different lines on this matter towards claims whose only difference is that of the user Department. However I am not sure whether the matter can be pursued any further until we get the reports from the local officers. Meanwhile I should be glad if you would let me have a copy of the letter of ry Council of 16th September 1943 which I have not seen.
Tan sending copies of this letter to Serpell, jales, Falmer, Haigh and arran.
copy already sent
T.C. Jerron, \sq.,
arffice ( S. .1.
•
Yours sincerely,
F. SEVERS,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.