553
SEE
to excca do deid eriseal de
ENA TIDIEGO bad tedd ine ni Juų vie
IP rs mit 1c 14
:、?」:,、
SAJ
CAMPUNG Alusde Josiew Jeje koJMRİ FARGO JI
! Manor Ri Ji excuc necij ni 2*17JAG SJ3 of cens:JUS
had no reason whatever to believe that their books would be over-hauled.
I submit that the books having been shown to be proper and lawful evidence the Council was justified in attaching great importance to the circumstances under which they had been procured.
7.
With regard to the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 5 of His Lordship's Despatch that statements to the effect that payments had been made to Mr. Ward by a third party were accepted as evidence I should like to offer a short explanation.
The procedure followed was that books showing entries of payments made to Ward were put in by the witness Leung In and that he and other witnesses were then called to explain and verify those entries.
I may state that I was not conducting the case for the Crown before the Council and that I had seen none of the evidence beforehand nor was I aware what witnesses would be called nor what it was expected they would say.
I have however since the enquiry read over the evidence before the Sanitary Commission by Ko Sang and Leung In and I find that in connection with this charge the former spoke positively to four direct payments and the latter to five direct payments to Mr. Ward. These payments were alleged in each case to have been made by the hand of the witness himself.
This accounts for 9 out of the 16 payments laid in the charge.
It is true that before the Council Leung In denied that he had himself personally made any of these payments to Ward, though he spoke to having made other payments which form the subject of another charge.
Ko Sang again, when before the Council, only spoke to having made one payment, that of September 3rd, 1905.