93
the late M. Alexander had adopted a different practice, which however was not the fact, as appeared on enquiry. The inconsistency of his conduct was such that I could only attribute it to the effect of severe cerebral irritation.
I returned to the subject through the Chief Justice. This letter was sent to me through the Chief Justice on August 12th and was answered.
On July 30th I received a letter from the Chief Justice dated July 28th, enclosing copy of letter N. 885 C.S.O. dated 24 July (to both of which I crave leave to refer in extenso) in confirmation of a proposition which I never dreamed of disputing.
And in another letter dated July 30th, received at the same time, to which also I crave leave to refer in extenso, the Chief Justice, after stating that all Official Communications respecting the Supreme Court must be sent through him, concludes in the following words, which are extraordinary, as I never had made any assertion to the effect stated.
"I further hope that you will not again assert that you are subordinate to the Offices of the Supreme Court, which he is the responsible head of the Supreme Court Department."
"Court, your persistence in that assertion" says... (a proposition which...