(x) .S ozubofomi
452
T
10% maaf et bat
#al no bem jen
ATAR to 1 of
e-ba(wondom od Murora
to note t
ndt na gomitofon air tu staðn to
beshewana
no baverer offas d'euch
540 2 2
droh or svart X [I
0.4
02
Acom I toutef
anoka - fris
݂ܕ
E
.3
Južnou-deog mult
¤OAJU? Ha on al
blent previ sir nå com#DAO ĮRSTIOD S.
.bmSS kodek raztof a
onx Mot to
Total & Tindrat a Juods
k ።
*
T
d seven #35 *nic Iĺbaxi trot
*or ¡roitneup ode at tv betonnnTON
No "ABCga birou et Jamariera
ant to se:2st ona brs (0° hormeten ende debtna-tson oild sgt må beɛcInne) viandat dr98 to redeal o. 2 to wat 2033
of bet brek erow todo el to net-bob cut tart (rectal ovods
Yna de bedsemper I ag 192780 90t no totaiga teiltrat £ 8a5tqZO
YoY ball rokdarmo?nk was r+bw Momoffooxif any viqqwa of amit
Lonefour
Excellency done so you would have had a reliable and accurate
statement of all the facts, many of which Your Excellency must
necessarily he ignorant of; Your Excellency's opinion therefore
only cannot be based on an imperfect knowledge of all the material
facts connected with the controversy. My letter to the "China
Mail" obviously was no more than a very brief resume of some of
the more salient facts.
3.
There is however one point to which Your
Excellency's attention has not been directed. The question, when
I wrote the letter to the "China Kall", was not a Government
question. The making of the Rule of Court is by the Ordinance,
No. 5 of 1898, put within the discretion of the Chief Justice.
It has to be submitted to the Legislative Council for approval,
but until this is done, the Government has no interest in the
matter. I had put my request for the Government support into
abeyance; which was a withdrawal of the question from the
cognizance of the Government. Your Excellency for reasons which,
with much respect, I could not understand, ignored the fact
that the matter was in abeyance, and informed me that you
were unable to support my proposal; but at that time there was
no such request on my part. Had I written to the papers while
such a request was alive, the breach of the Colonial Regulations
would have been palpable. But the facts were quite otherwise;
the only question alive at the tire was an administrative act, still inchoate, of the Chief Justice, with regard to which a great deal of puerile, ignorant and offensive criticism had
been going on in the Press.
4.
But there was a far more serious issule
involved. No language is, in my opinion, sufficiently strong
to condemn Hr. Hewett's action in the matter. By methods with which, I am sorry to say, we had become familiar from similar
and as it action on a previous occasion, he had endeavoured
successfully
-
appeared, at the moment,
to undermine ry in-
-fluence with the Solicitors, who are officers of my Court. He
had