Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 249

187

United Kingdom and places in respect of which the charges in the assess- ment are made exclusively against the United Kingdom should be divid- ed with contributors who are relieved from any charge in respect of such mails. Sea postage received by the United Kingdom on purely foreign mails which do not enter into the division of cost account, will of course be shared with all the contributors.

(b.) Extract from India Office Letter to Post Office, dated 24th August 1899.

It is not denied that, as regards receipts from other Administrations, the award gives in some respects a wider application than heretofore of the pooling principle; but, as regards the pooling of postage, the Secretary of State sees no reason to doubt that he has correctly understood the Arbitrator's words. Any wider interpretation, if applied uniformly, as it must be, to the mails in both direc- tions, would, it is thought, be less favourable to the British Post Office, and, from the remarks in Clause 3 of paragraph 3 of your letter, this would seem also to be the view of your Office.

(c.) Extract from Post Office Letter to India Office, dated 28th November 1899.

The Postmaster General has again scrupulously examined Clause (c.) of the award of Lord Morley, but without being able to arrive at any other view than that already set forth in letters from the Post Office. Indeed, the points brought for- ward in your communication had not been lost sight of when those letters were written.

The Postmaster General greatly regrets that the friendly understanding which he has established with the Secretary of State does not cover the whole ground. But for the circumstance that an exchange of views on the subject of Clause (c.) of the award has, as a matter of fact, already occupied much time, he would have thought that the meaning of the clause admitted of no possible doubt; and he scarcely thinks that the solution of the question raised at the India Office can be facilitated by any further observations on his part. He would therefore suggest that the point at issue should be referred to the Lords of the Treasury.

3200/1900.

MY LORD DUKE,

Treasury Chambers,

27th February, 1900.

With reference to the letter from this Department of the 5th instant (192/1900), I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to forward herewith, for your Grace's information, a copy of a letter from the Earl of Morley interpreting Clause (c.) paragraph 9 of his award on the apportionment of the receipts of the Indian Mail Service as between India and the United Kingdom.

I am,

My Lord Duke,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed)

E. W. HAMILTON.

SIR,

The Postmaster General.

192/1900.

House of Lords,

15th February, 1900.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of February 5th relating to the difference of opinion which has arisen between the Post Office and the India Office as to the interpretation, of Clause (c.) paragraph 9 of the award given by me upon questions at issue between these Departments respecting the apportionment of the cost of the Eastern Mail Service.

In reply I have to state that the interpretation of the Postmaster General is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of the paragraph in question.

I have the honour to be,

Your obedient Servant,

(Signed)

MORLEY.

The Secretary of the Treasury.