507
onefqor Jonaso snasbuoqɛe¬:00 .fromabut est to moltensyorq
noijat (uɛnos
Jeft al emerfos erið oð mottoejɗo auotea TestomA
.alseyya jne w to gaizsoit sɗi valob vidativeal Jaum ji
eft of 90NAJzoqni J2ortir ort to si ji tadt sneqyad jedto JI betro89ng sɗt niddiw no smoɔ biwore Iseque na tadt 891778q
bluow duon won suit xi miseqqa dove to cirse ødt .aɣsieb
9xBJ I .adinom svit move to tuɔt to sendt netto bayelah of
-dained Jaarroqul as 28* 818HT eIqmexo ma as socatant eno
DESO JAM on of [seqin eldiaaoq a evaa of rebro ni doldw
Isminino sil at tro II edt vd bise: sw Itomrod win?
od 1,derit :eelne enoldReup owd aldt og at moltothairul
€
Iseqqa on nottolbelt. Isal 70 mt breed wood bed 9280
wen art to this txan erið Litnu bissä ased evai hivoo
srit vibroner .tto a 'nom 2 ed i dɔidw won IseqUA
sɗd to acneşitli øvingeb [[tw tewob [seqqa sɗd to eonatalxe
101 ,JUOŊ [[ sild to mottaibalnut Lentgino end to titsusc Iomini70 at aegbut salsaixo oft erotad atningen ti nove
[selys ont od eyewis [Ilw eraɗs bemaleuoe ons moljolbaltut
et moltseup eft you rotorial:"*.tipod IzeqqA won erit ut eldablovanu need over blow overd esmo elɗt al te boxool
OF SOMBJY0:mi Jeera tɔ esw di Holds noitesup a bas,avelsb
ai atei moed evsd blow belttoa evsd od dnsmievon ent
5280 tasoen edt .Iseqqe odt to gninger ont quibnsq consve ́s
.Jaloq mi sonstent redtore at sonantb10 s odeun est rebras
-100 off el omedsa end of moltoejdío redtoms JOY
t
#
$1000
edt to XTow torto gift mi beauso ed IIte dɔldw nottees
adjnor out are gatrum .ayalsb Jпsupeenoo att felw Vino [ftw sredi to LaoqgA add to quittia ent of betoveb botovob ad Jaum doldw、0811 316Il dduom foes at doow eno od aredkedy zł 8780778 to naiseio of soltact teido art ed eft tto maldnow of sabut snelv¶ edt vd bus vodquidnad bus
artnow owt sesit not aesteas sɗ” .80260 Fiskmue to erset78
bead matrub bas ,adtnom antwollot smit of benoqceoq od term
t
months it will be practically impossible to hear any but very short Original Jurisdiction cases.
In this connection I understand that Sir H. de
Sausmarez has reported to the Secretary of State that I
told him that the Court could not sit de die in diem. I
cannot recall this conversation nor the time when it
occurred. Possibly it was at the time when I wrote my first
criticism of the scheme, when I supposed that the Shanghai
Judge was coming for a month, or I may have been alluding
to that criticism. If he were to come for that period
obviously the Court could not sit for the whole time, and
possibly during that time the three Judges could find some
of the necessary time for consultation. But if only 14
working days are to be given and the visit is to be don-
fined to about three weeks it is equally obvious that the
Court must sit from day to day in order to get through the
hearing of the cases. Subject only to the fact that the
sitting of the Summary Court on Fridays is statutory this
question does not admit of discussion.
F. The scheme is a temporary one, and no guarantee
is given that it can be continued after Sir H. de Sausmarez's
retirement. I venture to ask is it worth while to dis-
locate the work of the Court in order to introduce a scheme
*
of such doubtful efficiency? And I venture to put this
further question is it just to dismiss the Chief Justice
in order to give it a trial because he has pointed out the
probability of its failure? Supposing that it does fail,
what redress shall I have for the injustice which is now
proposed?
G. In an earlier paragraph I referred to the fact
that the scheme must be limited in its operation to appeals
from the Chief Justice in Original Jurisdiction. Some
difficulty must inevitably arise in disentangling the work
of the Full Court, which must remain, and that of the