245
thought to abuse the privileges of his Office.
8:
He moreover presses entirely by the given of the chartering of the Prince Albert for the specific purpose of her voyage, as alleged by her owner and says that the Master's simple asseveration of having been in quest of a missing junk, and his assertion that he had been driven into Port through fear of Piratical looking craft in the offing, could not come under the head of reasonable evidence. I have already fully shown that the object of the "Prince Albert's" voyage did not rest on the Master's testimony only, and therefore to imply, as Sir Rutherford does [Vide Governor to State 328 of 8 July 1867], that such was the case, seems a grievous injustice to the owner and a depreciation in a similar manner of the evidence regarding Pirates is justifiable, because, if the only possible evidence, namely that of the Master and his crew, is to be treated as inadmissible, then the absurd conclusion would follow that to prove danger from Pirates the Master should have awaited the capture of his vessel, or have found means to produce the Pirates bodily afterwards to be brought to justice.
I also deny that it is generous or just to offer uncalled for and depreciatory remarks on the absence of money, Cargo on board &c because
9