385
(145)
another Honourable Member asking what proofs there were of Caldwell's unfitness for office—and the answer ran. "Not to go beyond that attempt to deceive your Excellency in the Executive Council in October last."
Dr Bridges—Yes, I do remember.
(144)
Dr Bridges—I have no means of knowing—I should think the same day.
Attorney General. When did the conversation take place?
Dr Bridges. Early that morning. When I came to papers being destroyed.
ot be let off.
Dr Bridges—I believe Mr Mitchell saw the Beaver documents.
Attorney General.—Do you mean to say that in the office the Governor appeared to be aware of the fact of the books of the pirate there were entries of payments to Beaver—entries of money receipts by a man charged with piracy-apprehended as a pirate, and proved to have been in connection with Ma-chow Wong and that it was no aspersion to say there were entries of payments to Caldwell also?
Dr Bridges. I enquired of Caldwell at the time, and he said that Beaver was in command of a lorcha belonging to him (Caldwell)—Caldwell was not then accused of guilty participation with Ma-chow Wong. Till any man is proved guilty of a charge I take him to be innocent—especially if I have known him 5 or 6 years.
Attorney General.—You continue to treat as trustworthy, in all respects, as a public officer, a person accused, no matter for what crime, until he is proved to be guilty! Was it no imputation on Caldwell's loyalty during period of war, for the Commandant at Kowloon to desire Ma-chow Wong to thank him?
Attorney General.—Are there not allusions to those documents in my correspondence?
Dr Bridges. If Mr Anstey has documents in his hands, stating such to be the fact, I will not give a negative. If you say so, I have no doubt it is correct.
Attorney General.—Have you read the whole of the evidence printed by the Caldwell Commission?
Dr Bridges.—Yes.
Attorney General—On the 27th of May, the whole of that correspondence had been referred to by the Attorney General (refers to dates of various letters).
Dr Bridges. I do not mean, if you say so, to deny that the correspondence subsequent to the 10th of May contains reference to the papers and memoranda as then extant.
Attorney General. Did you learn from Mr Day's notes the fact that reference had been made by the Commission to Mr May's memoranda and the Ma-chow Wong papers as existing documents?
Dr Bridges. I have read the notes—I only knew from the Governor's conversation with me on the occasion mentioned that the references had been made. I then heard from Mr Mongan that the documents had been destroyed, and the Commission, the Attorney General, and Mr May were then informed of the fact.
Attorney General.—Were they informed the same day?
Dr Bridges. I cannot.
Attorney General.—Have you had a Subpoena duces tecum in this case, to produce correspondence with Mr Wade?
Dr Bridges.—I have a Subpoena duces tecum but not to produce letters of Mr Wade.
Attorney General.—Have you had any correspondence with Mr Wade on the Ma-chow Wong or the Caldwell business, or the Beaver papers or the May memoranda?
Dr Bridges.—I have heard from Mr Wade three times and I have answered him once.
Attorney General—Did you tell him you wanted Mr May's memoranda?
Dr Bridges. I have only told him that when he came down I wished him to settle a dispute between you, (Mr Anstey,) and myself.
Attorney General.—What was that dispute?
Dr Bridges. The question was as to a statement made to me a short time before he went away, about Ma-chow Wong's papers.
Attorney General.—Have you had any answer to that?
Dr Bridges—I have had no answer since.
Attorney General.—How does this agree with your police court statement that "you had repeatedly heard from Mr Wade.”
Dr Bridges. I have never written to him to ask what became of the papers, but simply to decide a question.
Attorney General. And now to the history of the burning of the documents? When were they burnt?
Dr Bridges. I think it was in March last.
Attorney General.—Now was it not in April or May?
Dr Bridges.—Certainly not.
Attorney General.—Why is it certain?
Dr Bridges.—I cannot be mistaken. My attention was very much attracted by the circumstance, and it was certainly six weeks before the Governor spoke to me about it.
Attorney General. On what day did the Governor speak to you about the burning?
Dr Bridges.—I cannot speak to any particular day. The burning was at least six weeks before the Caldwell Commission began to sit,
Attorney General.—Well that brings us into April.
Attorney General.—When you ordered those documents to be burned had you not reason to suspect that some had been abstracted?
Dr Bridges.—Certainly not,
Attorney General.—Had you no information from Mr Mongan to that effect?
Dr Bridges.—(After a pause to consider). To the best of my belief—not.
Attorney General. Do you remember Mongan's telling you of the particular number of books, viz 97?
Dr Bridges.—I have no remembrance of his telling me any were missing.
Attorney General.—Does that statement bring anything to your memory? Perhaps I can assist you (reads Mr Mongan's evidence at the Police Court, page 110 supra, as to not having all the documents).
Dr Bridges.—I do not remember his having told me that.
Attorney General.—Do you remember the Governor pressing you to get the correct translation from Mr Wade.
Dr Bridges. I have never said the Governor pressed me,
Attorney General.—Well when he did not press?
Dr Bridges—That is the only clue—It had impressed itself so faintly on my memory. I used to keep a memorandum book in which I jotted down matters which appeared to be important, but I have no entry.
Attorney General.—You have no other reason for fixing the date than that you have already given?
Dr Bridges.—None.
Attorney General.—Do you remember reference being made in the Legislative Council to the Ma-chow Wong books and papers, and to Mr May's memoranda, on the 10th or 14th of May?
Dr Bridges.—I do not remember.
Attorney General.—Do you not remember the Governor speaking to an Honourable Member on the subject?
Dr Bridges. My impression is that the conversation referred to the reason why they were not produced, not to their contents.
Attorney General.—I will refresh your memory—Reference was made to three particular items of the memoranda—Do you remember?
Dr Bridges.—No.
Attorney General—Did not one Member of Council say in answer to what another Honourable Member had asserted, that he did not care what passed in Executive Council?
Dr Bridges.—Yes, I remember some such conversation, I have no doubt but you are right—I thought it referred to Ma-chow Wong's release.
Attorney General.—Now follow me, and say if I am correct—Do you remember on one or both of those days