סון
|
The and point
Chathami views on
end 4 to 3189
3184)
the statement of His subject (pp 3-59
Mich
i
effection
.
argument at least ad hominem. against
M. Krisheri
-
Contention in
kit "in 1910
ont of In Fisher addressed foot on the subject y
Mlacing all fost buildings under
with
question of establiking
93
•
Guantity
hauch
surveying
рр.
to hum
(para 9 9 desf)) 5 ugaring
suy pested.
had his side of the case, except
the Law Courts, already,
I should to wichind to
We haven
Hell for that
Y apparis
cyands
revealed in
actual reduction in
control
personal.
But
#art
address
we
haven't jot
I duit
personally feel unchard
importance
to it.
to attach
The
mwerk
Fiskeri Ape
although th the commy wan Fisheri
condition
M
dult farth
dur
407
mi 1907 of
the work
# constuction
aupervising
bytt delay
#
NW
lorf
I
asumption
of designing, a
Schol
1 Anatomy,
nal stan
<
not
7.
nath material.
did not apparents
A
Th
pm
keni fill 1909
A
of end. 4
to 3189
как
13
W
Short
Am Fister
4
Mr. Chatham,
Coper
it appears from pu
his application for
dated
20 Feb. 1905.
Commision y
L
шар
G
btween!
the Poor
川
additional assistanc
independent
enguing, both into the light
Ifine a Law Courts scandal
Au
Rat
Hur
Ainh
do anything further.
th. Chatham (cept of
hind that
Kay
A
# working
P.W.D.
generall
I cannot
I don't
likel
k jet any
light
frain
temperament
clear that the Chathami methods,
A
76
fainty
indicated
# Pan incident,
the offerenty michat angefattention
attitude towards
Ih. Kishenin cyment for amcitance,
did litth to whicon th
latters difpiattis
a and him whether having band & K
dowth
Mich have been raised
administration q/k P.W.D.
consider Aut
at t
ho does not
would be advisalt L· holdi It E
# which question
independent exquing with on the spot.
Meanwhile
consult the Chattan
fara a (suorging hamch).
Russ
Our 23/6/14
کا
an
1