(
247
22.
From my letter of protest and His Excellency's
reply two points onerge, to which I respectfully draw Your
Lordship's attention.
First, the question of my character raised by Mr Thomson.
I submit that in the case of an officer of such long service
as myself the onus of proof is upon the accusing party. Never
theless, I have endeavoured by means of a detailed account
to shew that my service is inconsistent with the alleged failing,
whether as Warden of lines (pages 3,4) or when in the face
of considerable oposition I reformed the Education Office.
That I suffered from this weakness was certainly unknown to
the Colonial Secretary Mr Hay, or he would not have minuted,
when the appointment of acting Registrar General was under
consideration, that there was "no remedy" against my acting
(Page 7.) Nor as late as March last year would he have minuted
(page 14 above) that I was qualified for the substantive
appointment of First Magistrate, with preferential claims to
Mr Hazeland. The last quoted minute of His Excellency, para-
graph 3, is further proof that at that time there was no doubt
aa to my fitness. Immediately after, I revorted to my own
appointment and three months later I went on leave, being still
absent when Mr Thomson recorded his opinion that I was unfit
to act for a couple of months.
Mr Thomson's opportunities of arriving at a
knowledge of my character have been scanty. six years ago
he acted as Colonial Secretary, I being then in my substantive
appointment. He does not seem to have recorded any unfavour-
able opinion at the time. Since then, he has twice acted,
but I have been absent on leave during those periods. Our
other official relations have not been such as to illustrate
force or weakness of character, sooing they are composed