298
31. You should give a slight colouring to his own version of the incident, so as to conceal this offence?. Moreover, it appears from page 32 that the market price at the time was not 15 or 16 cents but 11 or 12 cents. Apparently five dozen eggs changed hands. The market price was 55 or 60 cents, perhaps 2d. low in Hong Kong. No doubt the shopman was willing to let the Inspector have eggs at a dozen below the market price, in order to find favour with him: and no doubt the Inspector knew it but I submit that it is ridiculous to call this a bribe and that the charge is too absurd for solemn discussion in Executive Council.
Tsang Tim. Charge (e) is that Kelly demanded $40 from Tsang Tim, who doesn't understand English says that he was sent for by Kelly who told him through an interpreter that he must have $40 (later reduced to $25) if he expected certain work of his to be passed as satisfactory. He didn't pay and the work was not passed. The weak point of this case is that the man alleges that he refused to pay for some time but at last promised to do so. (page 37). The notice from the Sanitary Board that the work was not passed was received not, as might have been expected, after the refusal but after the promise to pay. The man has very vague ideas about the date and keeps no books. No corroborative evidence is called and Kelly denies the story altogether. The man, who had sublet the whitewashing contract to Tsang Tim, had not heard anything about this demand for payment which is rather odd considering the amount of gossip which has been reported with regard to most of these charges. Why was no step taken to find the interpreter through whom all the alleged negotiations were conducted? I should regard this case as not proven and Dr. Atkinson, Sir Paul Chater and the Acting Attorney General share my view.
To recapitulate, the only charge which I should hesitate to declare "not proven" is (c) or rather one-fifth part of (c), the receipt of a ham on April 16th 1905. It is a question of believing Mr. Kelly or the Chinese witness. I incline to believe Mr. Kelly. The only guilt which I conceive to attach to him is the neglect to report to the head of his Department that hams and beer were being thrust upon him. This neglect would to my mind be amply punished by a reprimand and a fine. I should hesitate to say that the Sanitary Inspector did not accept gratifications: (the universal opinion seems to be that all Inspectors and Policemen in Hong Kong do take bribes) but I contend that not one of these charges comes within a measurable distance of being proved. Moreover,