Sir,
C.O. 24936
Attorney General's Chambers(9)
Hongkong, 3rd June, 1909.
515
In reply to your letter 7399/09 of 26th May, 1909, on the subject of the Attorney General's salary I have the honour to say that I do not concur in the recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee to reduce that salary from £1,500 without private practice to £1,000 per annum with private practice.
I concur in the opinion of the Committee that competition in private practice 'sharpens the wits and keeps one up to date in law and practice', and for those reasons I, until recently, held the view that it would be for the public advantage that the Attorney General should be allowed private practice.
I am however convinced from practical experience that no one can single-handed efficiently perform for any length of time the duties of Attorney-General and at the same time successfully conduct a lucrative practice at the Bar.
The demands on his time and attention from both quarters are each imperative and conflict too much to make it possible for both to be simultaneously complied with; the one must of necessity from time to time give way to the other and remain for a time without attention.
It would of necessity frequently occur that the presence of the Attorney General would be desired in Executive or Legislative Council or the preparation of a Bill would demand his close attention at a time when his presence in Court is imperatively required in the interests of his private clients to neglect which would destroy his private practice.
The volume of business in the Attorney General's Department, and the amount of clerical work in the way of drafting which falls upon the Attorney General personally demands