Coll 29/35 'Quarantine medical officer at Lingah in 1928-29; cost of retention' [‎10v] (20/46)

the date of expiry of the appointments. JMevertheless
it may be held to sanction in a general way the
proposals made for handing over Quarantine responsibility
including the Government of India's suggestion that the
outgoing officers might be "retained for say 6 months
to see that quarantine regulations are properly carried
out and give the new regime a fair start " (vide their
telegram of 18th July 1928, P.3749/28), flawed.
It is undoubtedly the case that the foreign
Office raised no objection to the retention of the
Assistant Surgeon at Bandar Abbas for 6 months up to 31s)t
January 1929 on exactly the same grounds as at Lingah and
the marginal correction in the A.G. minute just below Y
A.G. file) and the reference to P.6152/3 0 (flagged in
bound volume) are an error as the correspondence under
P.6152/30 refers not to the period in question, but to
the succeeding period from 1st February onwards (see
telegram from Government of India,^P.7613/29 flagged).
It is true that the Government of indisiwith
in
Ju. 'trlAr*) *
)'
J- ua*
Mr.Northcott 1 s minute^made no request that the foreign
Office should bear a moiety of the expenditure assuming,
they say, that it would follow the incidence of
expenditure on account of the Medical Officer at Bandar
Abbas, and in view of Government of India's telegram of
21st May 1928 (P.2633/28) the Foreign Office might have;
refused even to share expenditure at Bandar Abbas for the
6 months in question. Nevertheless as the Foreign
Office have been inconsistent, the Government of India*s^
case is, I think, worth taking up with them. The sum
at stake is not very large (-§• of Rs.3,850), but on general
grounds of equity, the Government of India should not be
made to bear the whole cost. It is unfortunate that
they/