Moreover, the case presents one remarkable feature. As a general rule in such cases, the accused man is in possession of an amount of money, which is far in excess of what he could have saved on his salary. (Cf. Ward's case 48048/06). signs of inexplicable wealth apisaoudly But Mr. Kelly has not shown. quite the contrary. Pages 42-45 are devoted to proving that he has not saved so much money as might have been expected. What then happened to the hypothetical
299 "corruption prevails to a considerable extent among the subordinate offices ite the taking off bribes presents is not regarded (812 of 45045); and having regard to the important public interests at stake, one's feeling is that it is safer to err on the side of severity. In my opinion the Officer Administering the Government should be informed by telegraph that the Secretary of State does not consider the charges proved and cannot sanction dismissal and an explanatory despatch should follow suggesting that the only thing proved is neglect to report the inexplicable appearance of beer and bacon and that that offence would be adequately punished by reprimand and fine or reduction in rank.
It is a matter of enormous difficulty to arrive at a correct conclusion. The difficulty still exists for those who have only notes to go upon. The S. is in the dilemma: if he condones the offence, he may be punishing injustice; if he punishes severely, he may discourage the efforts to purify the service. In the good opinion of the Government, severity rather than leniency is warranted in cases of accused officials.
I differ considerably from the views expressed in Shells' minute. My view is that the Chinese witnesses were, if not unwilling, at least reluctant to come forward, not to mention their dislike to finding fault with their superiors. Assuming for the sake of argument that the procedure was not perfect, Kelly did bribe others, the question is not one of complaint under a certain rule, it were too lenient.
I don't think that Mr Stibbs' version is a correct inference. Kelly acknowledges that he threw the San "pretty well" (p 30). Ko Sam must have known perfectly well for what reason. Before the facts were being brought to light through his accounts. 5 June Cy was being examined on the Entries in Kai Ki 5 and he was asked "Who ...
Page 24/1
Conchas con ... with Regard to Chrisze with Rocam her face the with cres the sport. Ken under Hand; for us. who have only notes topompon, the difficulty stile females.
...
Page ...
The final response is:Moreover, the case presents one remarkable feature. As a general rule in such cases, the accused man is in possession of an amount of money, which is far in excess of what he could have saved on his salary. (Cf.Ward's case 48048/06). signs of inexplicable wealth apparently But Mr. Kelly has not shown; quite the contrary. Pages 42-45 are devoted to proving that he has not saved so much money as might have been expected. What then happened to the hypothetical
299 "corruption prevails to a considerable extent among the subordinate offices; and the taking of bribes presents is not regarded (812 of 45045); and having regard to the important public interests at stake, it contrasts one's feeling in altering to safer. In my opinion the Officer Administering the Government should be informed by telegraph that the Secretary of State does not consider the charges proved and cannot sanction dismissal and an explanatory despatch should follow suggesting that the only thing proved is neglect to report the inexplicable appearance of beer and bacon and that that offence would be adequately punished by reprimand and fine or reduction in rank.
It is a matter of enormous difficulty to arrive at a correct conclusion. The difficulty is still there for those who have only notes to go upon. The S. is in the dilemma: if he condones the offence, he may be punishing injustice; if he punishes severely, he may discourage the efforts to purify the service. In the good opinion of the Government, severity rather than leniency is warranted in cases of accused officials.
I differ considerably from the views expressed in Shells' minute. My view is that the Chinese witnesses were, if not unwilling, at least reluctant to come forward, not to mention their general dislike to finding fault with their superiors and from interfering with their affairs. Assuming for the sake of argument that Kelly did bribe others, the question is not one of complaint under a certain rule, it were too lenient.
I don't think that Mr Stibbs' version is a correct inference. Kelly acknowledges that he threw the San "pretty well" (p 30). Ko Sam must have known perfectly well for what reason his accounts were being examined and on the Entries in Kai Ki 5.
Page 24/1