19
wholly untrue, and therefore the book story to be untrue, the bulk of which story had with an unimportant modification been admitted by the Governor here Johnson
Alber:
on the 25th
of
(14) after this Dr Eitel could not plead justification without compromising the Governor, whose retraction of the material charge made it possible for him to deny the truth of statements which he had made on the
after?
to deny Governor's authority, N... Note that the guarded language of denial in one of Dr Eitel's two letters of the 28th of November.
(15) that up to the date of the hot truce compromise he acted under the Governor's instructions throughout. (16) that the compromise included a letter from the Governor to Mr Hayllar (which we have not got) and telegram from the Governor to the S. of S. (supposed that of the 25th of November) see pap & CL besides 87 Eitel's letter on which alone it ostensibly rests
my rede
of the m para
20
bkan kaja kaksi naizzCAz
28. In brief Dr Eitel's defence amounts to this
that he was
12
that
Hu
not only authorised, but ordered, to shew the papers to Mr Johnson and to explain them to him his explanations were those of Governor himself, subject to a possible inaccuracy of no material importance statements in good faith, believing them to be true and that it was his duty to the Governor to make
that the Governor at first
Theer
that he made the
approved of what he had done but afterwards retracted the most material statement, which left Dr Eitel no alternative than to admit that the statements were untrue
29
Dr Eitel's very circumstantial defence requires to be circumstantially met, very bad te Governor meets it only in a general way. He cannot notice all Dr Eitel's
Dr
Eitel was only
inaccuracies to shew the papers and was to refer enquirers to the Governor for details. His statements were unauthorised
Page 19
...
Page 20