30
cara
the difference between the figure you have of £143950 and the figure of about £200,000 which appea: in the telegrams. Both figures in fact relate apparently to the same valuation by the Director of Marine, but the second figure is larger because it includes some additional items not covered by the first (you will note that the Governor's despatch of the 12th January says nothing about the claims on behalf of the Admiralty and war office to which also you refer. I shall return to this point below).
4. The Governor's despatch No. 292 of the 12th December 1947 dealt with a large number of items of expenditure of various kinds, liability for meeting which was at issue between His Majesty's Government and the Hong Kong Government. The Ministry of Transport harbour oraft was one of these. As a result of the general financial settlement finally arrived at the Hong Kong Government became liable for such payment as might be finally agreed for these craft.
5. Mayo's letter to Bourdillon No. TM. 29410 of the 26th April 1947 suggested that there were craft in use by the Hong Kong Government in which the Admiralty and War office were interested, but this is the only mention of such interest we can trace. We have had no reference of any kind from Hong Kong to the Admiralty and War Office claims referred to in your letter of the 12th July and we have likewise not received any proposal such as you mention that the Secretary of State should convene a meeting of interested Departments, so that a lump sum payment for small craft might be arrived at. The Governor has however asked for our assistance in negotiating with you and, in doing so, has said that the grounds for pressing for the payment to be scaled
/down
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.