31 July 1856
I have the honour to express my surprise that my letter to the Secretary of State admitted of the construction prompting of our question, but as an answer is required to such questions I distinctly answer in the negative and I request that your communication No. 543 of 30 July 1856 with this my answer thereto as also your communication No. which will accompany my letter of the 29 ult. to the Right Honble Secretary of State.
No 5/s
I have hn to be, Michm Ouper.
The same to the same
1 August 1856
I have the honour to acknowledge yours of yesterday 31 July 1856 directing my attention to a certain phraseology which I am stated to have employed in a prior letter, conveying His Excellency's instructions for further observations upon my causes of complaint and informing me of His Excellency's intention to consult the Executive Council.
I have to regret that an accidental omission on your part has completely changed the effect of your quotation from my letter; the phraseology "did explain was this" the only duties excepted I should be able to carry on as "efficiently as possible".
The words "in the supervision of Government works only and preparation of designs, reports and estimates of buildings" thereby clearly conveying the purport of your letter of yesterday, but not that I should neglect the more important duties imposed upon me by recent legislation, but that so long as H.E. tolerated the malpractices of the magistracy he must be contented to accept the responsibility of my inevitable failure of success.
I further regret to inform you that the observations in question contain nothing satisfactory nor even decisive of the grave matters so long pending in His Excellency's judgement; on the contrary, I observe with much concern that His Excellency for the first time appears to be now impressed with the opinion that I have been guilty of certain acts of misconduct which he specifies, but as to which if he had done me the justice of specifying them before he condemned, and of giving me opportunity of being confronted with my unnamed accusers, I think that I could have disabused him; I presume that it is to these specific instances of imputed misconduct that the general allegation contained in your letter of the ... alludes, at least if it be not devoid of meaning.
ты
* Su
31 July 1856
I have the hour to express my surprise that my letter to the Secretary of state admitted of the Constuction prompting of our question, but as an austver is required to such questions I distinelly ansever in the negative and I requent that your communication to 543 of 30 daly 1856 with this my answer thereto as also your
20 July 1868 may be
Communication No. which will accompton fle
my letter of the 29 miltant to the Right & Me secretary of State
Nro Sis
I have hown to be + Micham Owper..
She same to the same
1 august 1858
I have the hour to acknowledge. Yours of yesterday 31 July 1856 directing my attention to a certain" "phraseology" which I am stated to have employed in a primer lotter, Conveying A is Excellency's instructions further observations upon my causes of Complaint and informing me of thes Excellency intention to consult the Executive
to the propriety of houbling the Secretary of state in the matter of my Correspondence.
Conneil
I have to regret that an accedental mission on your part has completely changed the effect of your quotation from my letter the phraseology & "did exeplay was this" the only
only duties inception I should be able to carry on as "offerently sime".
correct-ui
words "in the
als.
"
Dustin
13
261
" and discreetly as possible would be the " "Supernsion of "Government works only and:
Extremates " preparation of designs reports and Estimates "of buildings" thereby clearly conveying the pacport of
mive of yesterday big not that I should neglect the more important duties unposed whon me by recent legislation bat that so long as H.. Z. tolerated the malpractices of the magistracy he must be contented to accept the responsibility of my inevitable failure of success.
I further regist to defour you that the observations in question Contani nothing Satisfactory nor even decisive of the glave matters to long pending in His Geellency's judgement; on the contrary I observe with much concern that His Excellency for the first time appears to be now impressed with the opinion that I have been quilty of certani acts of misconduct which he thecifies but as to which if he had done me the justice of to specifying them before he condemned, and of giving me
opportunity of being exhprouted with. My nunamed accusers I think that I could have disabused him; I presume that it is to these specific instances of imputed misconduct that the general allegation contained in your letter of the
au
Isamist & ffers, at least if it he not do
the meaning of the
allusion.
I.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.