increased in view of his suffering by the new rule. It seems that they considered that there was some unfairness in applying the rule to the existing holders without compensation.
Mr. Austin does not say that he was altogether unfitted for this work. The assumption is that previous experience would enable an officer to do it quicker and more conveniently. The mere fact that other people are deserving of a permit strikes me as a very weak argument.
As to the rule itself, I do not think that it is desirable that the Governor should have the power to select men to fill vacancies - a handsome douceur to Pemiline. I think that what is at the bottom of it all is that the place in question is looked upon as a sinecure.
I would not disturb the arrangement. Mr. Berkeley's remarks are not conclusive in favour of temporary land rent. On the whole, I would suggest that the mode of filling this post be left to the Executive Council, that they may properly discuss the form.
17 June
The former Ordinances 5/67, 63 seemed to contemplate a permanent appointment; and my impression is that in 1875 it was intended to continue this. In the following year, Sir Arthur Kennedy laid down the rule that our valuers should be appointed periodically, which makes me very doubtful about it.
I think Mr. Cry's answer is a fair answer to say that the manner makes it. I am not on firm ground. I cannot justify its form as Mr. Goransson has no ground to be countered as 84.416.
To proceed alone, Recent June 44
Page 287
28/5777
437
...
It appears that the original text was not properly formatted and had several OCR errors. I have corrected the spelling errors, fixed spacing issues, and reorganized the text into proper paragraphs. I have also preserved the original page numbering lines. Note that some parts of the text still appear to be unclear or nonsensical, but I have not attempted to rephrase or rewrite them.