"Lotion dof
hein
3 of Ordinance 9 of 1862, and in judgment they say: — "The English book could not itself, however, have
#16
been received in evidence, as the Rules and Regulations contained therein are not such Rules and Regulations as one would expect to be framed under the Ordinance. They do not in themselves purport to be so framed. They do not purport to be framed by the Captain Superintendent of Police, and they do not purport to have been approved by the Governor."
"It is therefore not strictly correct that the prosecution omitted to prove that the regulations in question had been approved by the Governor, although this had been duly done."
"The police should not have furnished the prosecution with what was stated to be the rules in question when they were not really so."
Page 4431
It is an understood rule that a Report by a Head of a Department should not be published if it contains statements that are open to controversy or objection on the part of another Department.
His Excellency also directed the omission of the paragraph referring to the rate of exchange, as this question has been more than once brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, who has stated that Ordinance No. 1 of 1864 "only refers to cases where British Sterling has been ... or shall be specified" in the Ordinance, whereas Mr. Jeane is, of course, aware that all salaries are voted in dollars and care is taken to specify salaries in the currency offered to candidates for appointment by me.
Under these circumstances, the Secretary of State might have considered...
لا لا لا لا لا لا اله الي الا