0.0.
ni di
A
-la. Ford
JE
BJ JODE
dont and
77
ON BRI
golifunï v. „ninaonge
om vil
VAL I
10 CUB..
I think it advisable that there should be a clear statement of the facts which have occurred in connection with the dispute which has
40 HEAD 31 JUL 1? arisen over the Revised Edition of the Laws of the Colony in conse- quence of the unfortunate attitude which the Government has chosen to assume in regard to my work. That attitude may be briefly but accurate- ly summarised thus that I have put forward an imperfect work and
ave insisted on its being accepted, and that the Government on the other hand has refused to accept the work as the Laws of the Colony on account of its alleged inaccuracy. So far as I am concerned nothing could be further than from the truth.
My attitude is very clearly defined in the Preface, and I should
have thought it incapable of being misunderstood except by people who do not wish to understand. I have had too long an experience of print-
ing work, and also of revision work, not to know how liable one is in
the multitude of little details that have to be looked after to make
mistakes. The conditions under which this work especially was done
made pitfalls in the path at every turn, and I have always been con-
scious of the possibility of errors creeping in. It was gor this rea-
son that when six months ago the time came to begin verifying the work I asked for the assistance of the Heads of Departments concerned. As
there seems to be a good deal of misconception on this point I will
deal with it first.
I wrote to the Government (the exact date has escaped me, but it is
not material; suggesting that as the Revision Ordinances had become
very complicated it would be better that each Department should take
its share of the process of verification. I went as far, I think at
the Attorney General's request, as grouping all the Ordinances under
different heads, assigning to each Department those which specially
concerned it. The suggestion met with no support; the Departments were
too busy (there seemed to be a lurking suspicion that I was trying to
shark my own work), the Attorney feneral grumbled, he had not time,
and so I was compelled to withdraw the suggestion. When what has been
called the "independent scrutiny" was said to be necessary I naturally
referred to the fact that six months ago I had myself proposed it with-
out success and that to insist on it now before paying the final instal-
ment or considering the question of extra remuneration was most unfair. I can only characterise what took place at the interview which I had