Sec.46/5061/47
SAVINGRAM
To the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
From the Governor, Hong Kong.
Date 3
No. 992
November 1949.
17
8
(19) on 248
Craft.
(me Mr. Karkiness)
(12) on 54126/6/47
(1) on '48
Your savingram No. 35 of 12th January, 1949.
Harbour
1. In the course of complying with your request for further details of the origin and dates of arrival of the harbour craft supplied to this Government in 1946 and 1947, further correspondence has come to light which was not available at the date of my confidential despatch No. 292 of 12th December, 1947 and No.19 of 30th January, 1948. This correspondence throws fresh light on the incidence of expenditure for the vessels in question and it is much regretted that it has not been brought to your notice earlier. The explanation resides in the inadequacy of the records made in 1946 owing to shortage of experienced clerical staff and the difficulty of tracing correspondence which this shortage has occasioned.
2. The correspondence now discovered concerns the financial responsibility for the provision, storage, and transportation of vessels disposed of in Australia. It begins
(43) on 1350/15/146. with the Governor's telegram No.723 of 1st August, 1946,
Enclosures Nos.1-6.
copies of which and of subsequent correspondence are now attached. It seems clear from paragraph 2 of your telegram 1438 of 17th December, 1946, that H.M.Government had agreed at that time to bear the cost of the craft which were
(71) 18330/15/1/1/46 destined for Hong Kong, presumably up to the number or
(63) on-
perhaps the tonnage authorised in the original Admiraltiy directive M/S V.P./E.T 5127/45 of 17th August, 1945 and independent of their department of origin. It is equally clear from the succeeding telegram that it was on the strength of this undertaking that this Government was prepared to accept at least partial responsibility for charges connected with the storage and transportation of craft.
It
is possible that this undertaking was overlooked when H.M. Government's liability for the cost of craft was repudiated,
(3) on '48 (see paragraph 1 of your telegram 480 of 23rd April, 1948),
and of course the point was not taken up further by this Government for the reasons explained in the preceding paragraph.
3. It may appear ungracious to insist that H. M. Government should adhere to an admission even so unequivocal as that
(41) am 18330/15/1/1/46 contained in paragraph 2 of your telegram 1438 of 17th
an
December, 1946, when there has already been a War Expenditure settlement in generous terms and when H. M. Government is still struggling to restore the economy of the home country to pre-war level in the face of great difficulties. Reference to correspondence connected with the War Expenditure Settlement will serve to show that this Government singled this claim out as different from the generality of claims. Had these vessels arrived during the period of the Military Administration there would have been no question of payment by this Government and there seems to be no reason of logic or sentiment why this Government should pay merely because of their delivery after the termination of the Military Administration for reasons quite outside the Government's control, which are set out in the last paragraph of this savingram. There are also the very strong arguments for free replacement of war destroyed craft advanced in my
(1)on't despatch No. 19 of 30th January, 1948, which also recited the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.