MT
el. No.: Whitehall 1234.
Your Reference...
54126/6/49...
IF 4/09 B
Treasury 'Reference..
15
TREASURY CHAMBERS,
GREAT GEORGE STREET,
LONDON, S.W.1.
34
16th October, 1949
(6)
Dear Palmer,
I hope shortly to be able to answer your letter of
22nd September about Hong Kong denial claims. Meanwhile I write to give you the information about the Burmese attitude which I mentioned on the 'phone. I hope that your legal adviser will
be able to say whether strictly speaking this would be correct elsewhere, e.g. in Hong Kong.
"It has been said that the damage done in pursuance of the denial scheme was done either in exercise of the Crown's prerogative in time of war or was done by the civil administrative authorities under the powers given by the Defence of Burma Act 1940 and the rules thereunder. If the former, the damage lies where it has fallen. If the latter, the Defence of Burma Act was enacted as a Governor's Act under the Government of Burma Act 1935 in 1940 and was expressly enacted as a temporary Act; it expired in 1947; and with the expiry of a temporary Act went all rights, obligations and remedies thereunder except such as would be saved specifically by an enactment."
I quote from the latest Burman aid memoire on the subject,
It reporting legal advice received by the Burman government. may well be, even if this is valid for Burma, that the legislation in the colonial empire was of a different type; but I think the point clearly ought to be investigated if we are to make a proper presentation of the case to a colony.
H. Palmer, Esq.,
Colonial Office.
Yours sincerely,
Lombardy
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.