X
1
agree with
with tbs of Jour
minute
doubtful
whether
(1
could
he
maintained;
but presumably you
to what extent 2(a) of No. 13
affects the
of clearance
Oseems
very
J
case
of
miner
similar
15
of explosion of other munitions
mixed Japanese
Antioh ongens.
hu. Wallace
ކނކ
damage
but
am
evecenfelly
will comander
5534749.
arising out
laid by the military
damage
thean
areany
our
9
Что
might ask Sin S. Abrahams
(4) is
counter to
on letter at
(2).
Please see
my
think wor
min. of 9/9;
9
Le J
Tabbed 'X'
(13)
on
we have had f
pass them too
whither be considers
my 3 (a) is
tenable, with reference to the terms of ONE (D) in 552/7/6/40/47 (terms which have
led to many disputes with Bervice Dept. already).
If 3(a) is
fall back on
try
must
not tenable, we shd. 3(b) alme. I think we
to keep this off HK
hard
altogether, comparatively small as it
mary
is
impolathe things
recently.
h.
3019
زمن
one.
the last straw
was also a small
Kühner 28/9
Page
Page
10
ge 10
6
भ If W.3. aques The Malagan proporal, which is doubtful, we will be on shiny grounds in astring the 6 age also to a suniter concessão to Hong Kong. Compl 16/10
I agree with Mr. Kirkness that we must
go on fighting this and I think our case is good.
20
I will (I hope) dispose first of the doubt Mr. Palmer raises at X of his minute of 17/9. Paragraph 2(a) of (13) on 55342/49 does not state anything new so far as Hong Kong is concerned. In (6) read with (4) (both on the same file) and the enclosur s thereto, Hong Kong agreed to indemnify the War Department against claims arising from explosion etc. attributable to the action of the military forces employed in the disposal of unexploded bombs etc. (last sentence of paragr ph 3 of (1) on 55342/49, copy of which was one of the enclosures to 4). This is infile fact the point to which paragraph 6 of (4) now under conson and paragraph 5 of (1) relate. The War Office admit that this agreement by Hong Kong was not in force when the explosion we are here concerned with occurred, but sur est that there should "on moral grounds" be retrospective application of the agreement on this point. don't think these moral grounds are very strong. Hong Kong's agreement to indemnify the ar Department, to which I have referred, was given as part of a bargain by which the War Department agreed to carry out the work of bomb disposal etc. provided the Hong Kong Government would pay the cost (including indemnification against claims). Not only did the explosion we are here concerned with occur long before this agreement was come to, but it did not occur in the course of bomb disposal etc. operations but, (according to the enclosures to (1)) as a result of negligence on the part of the
ar Department while the dump was under their sole charge.
I
3. For the rest, I agree with Mr. Kirkness that the War Office's shift of ground to reliance on telegram 01733 avails them nothing. I am doubtful whether paragraph 3(a) of his minute is tenable, but I, like Mr. Palmer, think his
I
paragraph 3 (b) is. We should be grateful for Sir Sidney Abrahams' advice on this point. have put in 52325/49, to his minute of 21/1 on which reference is made in Mr. Sidebotham' minute of 31/5 on this file.
4. It is desirable to keep Eastern Department in the picture as to the progress of this argument, so I pass through Mr. Chaplin.
5. There is a point not in issue here to which conson should be given after the reply to the War Office has gone. That point, is that in
(b) of paragraph 2 of (13onvey the view of the Federation of Malaya that the War Office should accept liability to pay pensions in the event of death or pensionable injuri sustained by Army personnel during bomb disposal operations etc. Hong Kong have however agreed to accept such liability. When we put the proposals to them in (4) on 55342/49 we rather took it for granted that Malaya would agree to accepting liability on this
point
ge 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.