Ms.
.:) .S OTUPA İMK
COPY
[erencƆ-yaungada .mk
Enclosure 2. (d).
215
on 0 edt erdei- samovol met genelicera BiH
F
er to endile de 1 como de doninen moo
"C
p
+
* ךי
ritsagen "-cers [BC jaofcoll" [ar "find anido" Leven sport mi terreqqe do idu
+
idra med?
Iedile
ndedilarno rottel en tar umroved edt to *(dre 8) moni°10 Joinde IC dnadeiraå Enema“ et uloge stalguns For Livì a reginu Jord vod edt pregoj er viert to sopral dyen Feriep ledil 757 noita
[
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
1. I understood that I was not to pass on the above
instructions to the Crow Solicitor if I had any submission to
make against the course there suggested. I was unable to discuss
this with Mr. Wakeman as he was in Court.
2. It is quite possible that the sentence referring
to the District Officer (South) might be read as having a
libellous meaning. The inuendo would be that it meant that
Mr. Hamilton had neglected his duty as District Officer (South).
The sentence refers to Mr. Potter's predecessors, but the
reference to poetry clearly points to Mr. Hamilton, and in any
case he is one of the predecessors. It is quite possible that
a jury might take the view that these words were a libel on
Mr. Hamilton. It is perhaps even likely that they would, provided
that their minds were not confused by the question of whether
the Government ought or ought not to have provided some electrical
means of communication with the islands,
3. It is however also possible that the sentence might be
interpreted in a non-libellous sense. The gist of the whole
letter is that the Government ought to have provided some means
of communication, and that everyone concerned, including the
unofficial members of both Councils, have been guilty of neglect
in not urging this policy on the Government. Amongst others,
Mr. Hamilton ought to have thought more about the district, and
gone outside his duties, and taken it upon himself to urge this
policy. The defendants would also say that it is no libel to
call a man poetical, and that the policy of laissez faire is one
about which opinions may honestly differ. They would also say that
the writer never intended to charge Mr. Hamilton with neglect of
his duties as Assistant District Officer (South), and that they
only