report states that the Government did not accept the audited figures and that it is its experience that expert opinion of the value of the subject matter of the claim varices very considerably according as the claim is made by or against the Government.
After traversing at length the communications of Mr. Moller and Mr. Burkill in the '"North-China Daily News," the report' states in conclusion that the first proposal of an Indemnity Ordinance \from the Secretary of State reached Hongkong on February 13, 1921. Mr. Fletcher left the Colony for England on January 1, 1921. Neither he nor the Government had contemplated the question of an Indemnity Ordinance. Invited by the Colonift' Office for his opinion, -Mr. Fletcher referred to the arrangement to stay legal proceedings during his absence. He suggested that the introduction of. the Ordinance would be construed as an act of bad faith on the part of the Hongkong Government.
The Imperial Government, under whose orders the Hongkong Governmept acted, was obviously' the responsible party. Mr. Flet-until his return to the Colony: cher heard nothin further
He re-opened negotiations with the owners which finally ended in the proposal of a division of profits, which the unofficial mem-hers rejected. The unofficial] members at the same time advised that the Indemnity Bill should proceeded with. It then seemed to Mr. Fletcher that he could not usefully do anything more on Behalf of the owners.—Reuter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.