OP Y.
اني
2.
C.O.
24936
RECR Chambers: 26 JUL 09
Supreme Court House,
Hongkong, 2nd. June, 1909
13
.9
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's letter, dated 26th ultimo, enclosing copy of an extract from the Report of the Retrenchment Committee, enquiring whether I concur in the recommendation that the salary of the Attorney-General be reduced to £1,000 per annum, with the privilege of private practice.
I fully agree with the general principle that a law officer who gets no Court work is apt to get out of touch with the profession.
I know from my own experience that the Attorney General here gets practically no civil work: while Criminal Sessions once a month are hardly sufficient to give him the practice required. I think that most men would be willing to accept the condition proposed, and would have no difficulty in recouping themselves for the lower salary by the fees they would earn.
In many of the smaller Colonies, the Attorney-General is, I believe, still allowed private practice; but this privilege was apparently withdrawn in Hongkong and the Straits some 20 years ago on the supposition, I presume, that the work required the whole time of one man.
Looking back on the period some 2 years ago when I acted as Attorney General, I do not consider that the work of the department at that time was incompatible with a fair amount of private practice.
I think, however, that the volume of Government business has increased since then: whether the increase
Page 13
...
(The rest of the text is not provided in the given snippet, so the proofreading is limited to the available content.)