11
the correspondence. I think he is deserving of a great deal of commisera tion, tor really he must have at times wondered where he stood.
His relations with the Government may be grouped into three
stages-
There is the Bruce Shepherd period, when he is subjected to the persuasion of the Land Officer, m,order to get him to sign the agreement subject to the same undertaking that Chu Chuen signed. He wouda't sign. The Government, however, persevere in their desire to protect him. anen comes the second period, when for reasons which it is unnecessary to enquire ato, he determines to bring an action to enforce the rights which the Government have been so determined he should have. correspondence casued between the solicitors of Yiu Chow and Chu A Chuen, which after a time embraces the Colonial Secretary.
No 4 is a letter from Messrs. Ewens and Harston, Yiu Chow's solicitors, saying that they are owners of sections B and 1, and asking whether the Governor will give them possession of the Reclamation in front of it: in other words whether the Governor will give them what the Government is now most strenuously contending he is entitled to. The answer (No. 48) is that the Governor has no power to sette disputes of title, such disputes must be settled by the parties concerned, and therefore the request cannot be granted. What this means passes my understanding: there was no dispute of title, but only a dispute as to what was the proper division of the reclamation in front of sections B and D; and the Government now maintains, and maintains that it always has maintained, that the holder of sections B and D was entitled to all the Reclamation in front of it. Then Messrs. Ewens and Harston, basing themselves on this, (49) say very well, we will fight out the dispute, but will the Government accept the decision and give the reclamation to the winner? No, the Government won't do that (51) "it is no way interested in the matter in dispute between the parties." Cue wonders then why the undertaking was insisted on in favour of one of these parties--the holder of sections B and D. Well, say Messrs. Ewens and Harston, (52) that being so, will the Government abide by the judgment of the Court in the action! No (34), at present the Government can only say that any application for a lease which may hereafter be made will, as usual, be considered on its merits. But the merits the Government now insists, and insists that it always has insisted, had been settled long ago when the first undertaking was given by Chu Chuen. Then, say Messrs. Ewens and Harston (57) we shall have to join the Government as defendant, a course which all along they had been anxious to avoid. Then (58) the Government has nothing to add, except to state that the Government is obliged, of course, to give effect to any decision of the Courts of law in so far as it is bound by such decisions. But "bound" being a word of dubious meaning, Messrs. Ewens and Harston are not satisfied (59): in their opinion, the Government not being parties would not be bound by the decision, the Government must therefore be made a party. No answer seems to have been received to this, so a month later Messrs. Ewens and Harston make one final effort and write direct to the Governor, and put the same question, pointing out, that he the Governor is the person who will have to be made co-defendant. answer (64) is a reference to the former letters, to which there is nothing to add. Yet this is added, "The Crown is not interested in the matter in dispute, and the Government will of course pay due regard to any decision of the Courts in connexion with such dispute." As a model of circumlocution this correspondence is altogether admit- able, and on taxation a party to a suit who indulged in it would have to pay all the costs occasioned by it. In view of the attitude assumed by the Government from the first with regard to Yin Chow, this last. auswer ought to have been given to Messrs. Ewens and Harston's first letter. I cannot appreciate the disinclination in the circumstances to give a direct answer to a simple and legitimate question; nor do I think that giving direct answers is inconsistent with good government.
The
But then comes the third stage, when I must say to muy intense surprise, the cold fit is succeeded by a very hot fit indeed, and after the decision given in Yiu Chow's favour by this Court had been reversed by the Privy Council, the Government once more champions Yiu Chow's cause, Messrs. Ewens and Harston again press the Government to do something for their client, and this time they do not meet with a rebuff; on the contrary a letter is written by the Colonial Secretary calling on Chu Chuen's executors to fulfil the agreement in favour of Yiu Chow's successors in title, letter 98. The letter professes to summarise the judgment of the Privy Council. I think it sufficient to say that it summarised only a part of the judgment and omitted that very material part which declared that Yin Chow had no rights under the agreement or under the Ordinance. The Government then, or rather after almost a year's delay, start this action, the present Governor being made plaintiff, having obtained a guarantee from Yiu Chow against costs incurred. It is to be observed that the Governor is not represented by the Attorney General.
I will now endeavour to summarise the results of this judgment, In the first place Sir Frederick Lugard cannot sue on this agreement, because it was not made on behalf of the Government, but by one of his predecessors in his own name: he was not a party to it, and there has been no assignment of the rights under it by the actual maker of
296