483
States except as special officers: whilst therefore it was natural and just that former officers in the native States should, on the Federation, rank with Cadets in the Federated Malay States, it did not follow that they ranked as Cadets in the Straits Settlements. There may have been cases of interchange for executive reasons between former officers in the native states and Cadets in the Straits Settlements, but that did not assure to such officers the status of Cadets in the Straits Settlements. But the statement in his 3rd paragraph can be referred to the Straits Settlements for confirmation or contradiction.
Allowing that Mr. Irving held in the Federated Malay States Service the status of a Cadet, his transfer to this Colony, where there is no class of officers, not being Cadets, who have the status of Cadets, did not carry with it a continuance of his status of a Cadet so as to create in this Colony a new rank of public officer. It may be argued perhaps that, as the Federated Malay States Service and the Hongkong Service are Services whose officers are interchangeable, Mr. Irving, as an officer having the status of a Cadet, carried that status with him on transfer here; but the answer is I think that only Cadet Officers and not officers having the status of a Cadet, are interchangeable: if it were otherwise, we, having no officers with the status of Cadet who are not Cadets, would have no one to send to the Federated Malay States and should therefore be the losers. Further it is to be borne in mind that the interchangeability of Cadet Officers was first promulgated in 1896, a date posterior to the date when Mr. Irving joined the Service of the State of Perak as a Junior Officer in 1891.
Coming new to the 4th paragraph of Mr. Irving's letter on the point of promotion, He seems to base his eligibility for promotion on a telegram from
the