17
wriggles/
association with this case, if he would add any general comments he may have.
7. Finance Department should see, I think, on three grounds specifically:-
(i)
the claim against H. M. G. referred to in
paragraphs 2(a) and 3 above is the claim to which Hong Kong referred (in (31A)) in the course of our exchanges about
the 1948/49 Estimates.
(ii) The attitude of Hong Kong unofficials and
perhaps also the Hong Kong Government over the recent war expenditure settlement with H. M. G. has struck us sometimes as rather unreasonable and unreal. Here, in the same claim referred to in (i) above, is the other side of the medal a claim (apparently not disputed in principle) by Hong Kong against H. M. G. for materials supplied during the war to which after 18 months there has not even been a reply, let alone a settlement.
(iii)
8.
If Hong Kong has been unreasonable in trying
to shift certain kinds of war expenditure on to H. M. G. the case referred to in paragraphs 2(c) and 5 above is hardly a praiseworthyexample of H. M. G. 's readiness to play fair by the Colony. in fact the shifty idèles of the War office would be nauseating if they were not rather funny.
I apologise for the length of this minute, but it seemed necessary to try to draw a number of rather tangled threads together.
27.10.48.
J
entiril
ayu
wirh R
द
2 draft.
(the implication in
No 41
might buan
immediat
amy
Le Co Vates
compassation
payments
mis conceptio
dunh
A bran
du
Afric
preins
praulinis ?
1
ميد
in
a
1
h
mathes.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.