Decision arrived at by your predecessor in 1891. The Hong Kong Weekly Press later took the opposite view and supports the present System. I have always been sorry private practice was abolished, but it would probably be unwise to alter it again on the subject.
The former papers are out of perhaps with M. Wingfield. Are they with C.P.L.? 2. Nov.
I haven't got them.
Mr. Fainfull's EW 12M 12/n Not with me. With you.
M: Bramston
I have found the papers & they are now annexed.
I am sorry to have delayed this. I presume it is not proposed to alter Goodman's position for long against his will: but he opens his mouth too wide in asking to give Private Emoluments in addition to or not in diminution of his present salary ($800 p.a.). In my day there goes very little business in the Council, as compared with the heavy practice before & since, but even then it has prestige & drawbacks. The salary of $4800 is ample time for Government work: & I have little doubt that Mr. Goodman's time is not fully occupied. The fact that the work has increased so much as to occupy his whole time, as would appear to be the case if W. Meigh is to be believed (7 of 1909), I am a little sceptical, but it may be that subsequent Governors make more work for the A.G. than was done best in A. Kennedy.
The former expresses no opinion upon this statement, so Tompson deems it accurate & in that case we cannot allow private practice, & things should remain as they are.
For Wingfield in the old days, we had pinned the idea that without private practice, he would become worthless & inefficient. But of later years, we have gradually adopted the other view, holding that the temptations to make money by private practice are not worth being put in that bad position (89327.12194).
Page 7
...
Page 7
...
Page 7