The Government give us Warning.
The voluminous correspondence inclosed is in the nature of a squabble, largely.
No Mr Bill's memorandum gives alternative recommendation. The first is out of the question. The second has apparently been adopted by the Governor, but I do not see why vessels touching at a port of call from infected ports need be treated at all and if this is not done I think that the withdrawal of private practice from Dr Jordan with $2400 per annum in his salary (made payable) should be sufficient.
I am inclined to think that a port of call like Hongkong might be a disadvantage but this might be adopted without copy of that memo to L&B, observing as at MG July 12/10 and Eund 14/x sir.
327 35252 Government House. Hongkong, 5th September, 1901.
I have the honour to transmit for your consideration a copy of the correspondence noted in the margin, and to inform you that I have been advised by Executive Council that two Health Officers of the Port are required in this Colony and that these Officers should not be allowed private practice.
In view, however, of Dr. Jordan's long service as Health Officer of the Port, I am of opinion that he should be allowed to retain his private practice on shore only on the distinct understanding that, when himself engaged in private practice, he will always place at the disposal of this Government another Officer, as his substitute, to discharge the duties of Health Officer of the Port and who will not take private practice on board any ship.
Dr. Jordan should also be informed that the Steam-launch used by the Health Officers of the Port will be available for Government work only.
If Dr. Jordan is willing to accept the appointment on these terms, his salary as Health Officer of the Port should be made the same as that recommended below for the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.
...
BCC(01)23 &c &c...