10
The Hongkong Bovernment Gazettę.
Will
[JUNE 19, 1858.
said, “No, I don't recollect it." This was between 1ng no amount but offering to give 5 per cent above the high- P.M. I was not then on friendly terms with Mr Hoey est tender. Being myself unable to read Chinese, I had the had not yet made up our differences about our quarrel watch amounts, explained to me partly by Mr Mongan, of the Su- was tried before you at the Police Court. I met Mr Hoey perintendency Department, partly by Mr Caldwell, the Re- this day not by accident, but in order to negotiate with bistrar General, and I shewed His Excellency the tenders about paying him out of the license. On the next day, whenhich had been received up to that time (Saturday) I sent I came up here, I reminded him of my previous denial. I for the Registrar General on Monday to ascertain the character thought about the Opium Monopoly about 20 days before the of the security offered by the five principal tenderers, and in 1st April. I had never consulted any one about it before this the course of that day laid before His Excellency the list of time (the 10th March.) I had first spoken to Mr Pat the tenders with the character of the securities, specifying the about it, certainly not before the 10th March; and had ashfact of three of the tenders having come in on the Sunday, him how much I should have to pay him as a retaining for and advising the acceptance of the highest tender, which was if I should get the Opium Monopoly. I think he said about one of those which came in on Sunday. His Excellency on $200 or $300. [Corrects himself. Mr Parsons said that day (Monday, 15th March) directed in writing the accep- would let me know the exact amount. He never has let metance of the highest tender [paper F read]. The tender was know either by writing or telling me. I have seen him since not accepted officially by the Governor in Executive Council several times, but we have never talked about the matteantil the following week, because it did not meet till then. It since. I said I would see about it; I did not say more, becaud had met on the day when the tender was provisionally accept- of course I was not certain whether I could get the monopoly (the 15th March,) but the meeting was over before the I did not retain Mr Parsons. I had not been to him purposely tender was accepted by His Excellency. As the Governor on the business; I only asked him because I happened to be had accepted this tender, which was from a firm, I thought it with him. I went with Mr Caldwell to have my name struct advisable to ascertain which member of the firm should be off the interpreters' list at the Supreme Court, because if elected to hold the Opium Privilege. 1 accordingly directed were an interpreter I could not hold the monopoly. Id the Registrar General to have the partners in attendance at know on what day this was-it was before I signed the sec Bovernment Office. They did attend on the following day bond; I don't know whether it was before I signed the the 16th March-three or four men. I informed them in Chinese bond. I saw Dr Bridges first on this matter about the through Mr Caldwell, and I explained in English to Chun-tai-
or 19th March I think. I had never spoken to Dr Brawong, (who was one of them, and whom I there saw and spoke before in my life. I was told by Dr Bridges's comprador came up to the Government Office to give the names of partners in the firm; this was after I was told we could b it. Achew told me I was to have it, and that Mr Caldwell he told him. Achew's name was mentioned as surety in ou tender. Before I and my partners tendered for the Monopy, the 17th March, and on the 23d March in a Gazetie
I had never seen Dr Bridges's comprador, or heard of, [At this point of the investigation the room was cleared, on the re-admission of the public the Chairman stated, thats Committee would receive from any one present written sug tions of questions to be put to the witnesses.]
Examination continued,-[Gazette of 20th February h to witness, and Government Notification pointed out.] the Government Notification about sending in tender not until about ten days before my firm tendered, belleve they did about three or four days before the of the time for tendering [March 13th.] My partn this business (the Opium Farm) are Leong-choi anda tak-chèong and Lee-chün; Hoey never was a partner. first bond we signed was torn up, I believe, because the was made without proper notice having been given.
Adjourned till 10.30 a.м. on Saturday next.
井
H. TUDOR DAVIES, Chairm
Saturday 15th May, instant, ot 10.30 Present, Both the Members.
for the first time in my life,) that the Governor had granted the Opium Monopoly to their firm, and that it was necessary they should select one of the partnership to hold the Monopoly, They promised to let me know whom they would name. The Opium Ordinance was, as I have said, passed the following
xtraordinary appeared Government Notification No. 26 (G), ving the Monopoly to Chun-tai-kwong, who had been named lu consequence me by bis partners to represent the firm. the Friend of China newspaper having pointed out that an fror that had been committed in not publishing the Opium ivilege Regulations previous to the grant of the Monopoly, Excellency had advised that it would be desirable to ncel the grant of the Monopoly, which had been notifierl, and other notification of the grant appeared on the 27th March, ng Government Notification No. 28 (H.) There was no of grant. It was a preliminary necessity that a bond uld be entered into with Government by the Monopolist h sureties before the privilege could be granted. One was cuted previous to the 20th March, on which the first Noti ition of the grant was signed. This was destroyed in the sence of one of the sureties (Achew), and a fresh bond was ered into on the date to be seen on the face of it, the 25th rch. After Chun-tai-kwong had signed the bond on that day, and Mr Hoey had signed it also, as surety, I asked Mr Hoey whether he had had any interest in the Opium Monopoly ; be said he had not. I therefore told him that I wished to speak to Chun-tai-kwong alone. Mr Hoey went out; I called Mr Almada, the Chief Clerk in my office, into the Colonial Secretary's Office, and when he had come, I said to Chup-tai- kwong that, with reference to the retainer, which he had on some previous day at my own house asked me whether I could accept, he must understand distinctly that I could not act for him in any way, or advise him on any matter, in which the Government was concerned. I should wish to state that the
son why the farm was not put up to auction was, as far as know, that it being altogether an experiment, and the sum tendered being so very high, and so much higher than we had any reason to expect, it was considered better to rest content-
DR BRIDGES, the Acting Colonial Secretary,-Called in and examined.
Chairman, Dr Bridges will you state to the Committee all you know as to the formal matters connected with the grant of the Opium Monopoly:-such as the names of the tenderers and times of tendering; the dates of advertisement and of the grant; the form of the grant, if any; the execution of the two bonds which the last witness has referred to?
Dr Bridges, Matters connected with the Opium Ordin ance were brought several times before the Legislative Council before the month of March last. This Ordinance was finally passed on the 17th March last. But it being altogether aned with the amount obtained by tender, than to run the risk experiment, it was doubtful what sum would be obtained from of causing embarassment to the Colony by getting a much the Monopolist, and whether the better plan for obtaining higher sum by public auction. It was also pointed cut to me revenue would be by tenders or by Public Auction. Notices that at public auction Government had no security that the for Tenders were issued, and the first appeared in the Govern highest bidder would be a responsible person; and the diffi- ment Gazette of 20th February 1858, being Government Notiti-culty of disposing of such a farm by public auction was shewn cation No. 18 (E.) In order to give as much publicity as possible, by the fact that Mr Glatz did not confine himself to any sum, an unusual step was taken by sending to the papers of gratis but stated his willingness to give 5 per cent above the highest circulation the advertisement for tenders. These two papers tender. It was clear to me, that were a similar course of were the Hongkong Recorder and the Register's Advertiser. In-action followed at public auction, a satisfactory result could structions were also given that circulars should be issued in Macdo and Canton. The tenders were to come in on Saturday the 13th March. On that day a considerable number of tenders were sent in to the Government Offices, some came in to my own private residence after 4 P.M., and the next day (Sunday) three more tenders came in, the parties stating that they had been up to Government Offices and found them shut, an hittender, it being 5 per cent higher than any other offered ? been unable to ascertain where my private residence was undil Dr Bridges, Mr Glatz's was not a tender properly speaking; then. The tenders were, with one exception, in Chinese. That it could not be accepted therefore. He named no specific exception was a tender by Mr Glatz, the watchmaker, specity-sum.
never be arrived at. I don't mean any reference to Mr Glatz individually, but I refer to a competition entered into upon such a principle. I therefore advised His Excellency to accept the highest tender, and not to go to public auction."
By the Chairman, Why did you not accept Mr Glatz's
tiny
JUNE 19, 1858.]
The Hongkong Government Gazette.
LEONARDO D'ALMADA E CASTRO, Chief Clerk the Colonial Secretary's Office,-Called in and examined.
Chairman, Do you recollect, that on the 25th March Chun-tai-kwong and Mr Hoey executed a bond to the ernment connected with the Opium Monopoly.
Witness.-Yes. I was present.
Chairman-Do you recollect Dr Bridges calling you the Colonial Secretary's Office after the signature?
Witness.-Yes.
Chairman.-What occurred?
Witness. Dr Bridges stated that he was going to be ri ed by Chun-tai-kwong as Counsel, and he desired that I be a witness to the following words," That in matters the Government was concerned, he (Dr Bridges) had no to say as long as he held the Office of Acting Colonial tary." Dr Bridges repeated these words twice to Chun kwong. Nothing more passed. I saw the bond signi Chun-tai-kwong and Mr Hoey in the presence of Dr Br I know that after this for some time, and before I was in, Dr Bridges and Chun-tai-kwong were together alone; Colonial Secretary's room. I know nothing that occur that time however. I was in my own room. I cannot how long they were together. I don't know exactly Hoey left, and therefore I cannot say at all how long tai-kwong was alone there with Dr Bridges; there mi about a quarter-of-an-hour's interval between the signing bond and my being called in. I know nothing about tai-kwong paying any money to any one on that day. tai-kwong appeared perfectly satisfied with what Dr B stated to him, and left immediately afterwards.
CHUN-TAI-KWONG,-Examination continued.
In answer to the Chairman, I paid the $400 to Bridges's comprador, at Dr Bridges's house on the of the 2d se month-the day of the fire. It on the afternoon before Jamp-light; I think I had been Government Offices on that day, I think to sign the s bond here. Dr Bridges's comprador told me the fee fo retainer was to be $400. I don't know exactly on wha be told me so; I think two or three days at the most bet.. paid the money. I don't know exactly where it was th
told me so. I think the comprador's place. I meant Bridges's house. [Corrects himself.] It was on the Qui Road. I met the comprador by accident, and then 1 "’nim, and he said, “I think $400.” I asked no one els much it was to be; but paid the $400 on the day I have tioned. I had only seen the comprador once before- three or four days before-at my office, where the comp had come to see Achew, who was one of my sureties after He told me who the comprador was. I did not enter business conversation with the comprador.
In answer to Mr Dent,-I cannot give any particular ri why I took for granted that the fee was certainly $400, I knew so little of the comprador, only that I knew he the comprador. I said to Dr Bridges, I think your $400, and paid him in notes. I cannot tell by referring books when the $400 were paid, because our previous ments connected with the Opium Farm were entered the 1st April, the day when the Opium Farm business re began.
By the Chairman,-I understood that what Dr Bridge to do for the money was, that he was to be generally retai for me, and to give me general advice in matters conne with the opium grant.
I forgot to ask about the fees on be I did not know I should have to pay then, until Mr S told me so some time afterwards. 1 think I had some; that I should have to pay fees with briefs. I expected for the $400 Dr Bridges was to write letters and docum Dr Bridges did draw for me a power of attorney, & rev tion of a license to Hoey, and revocation of the powe attorney. I don't expect to have to pay for them; I cons all such payments covered by the $400.
By Mr Dent, I have often been to a Solicitor; I had n retained a Barrister before. I went to Mr Stace instead to Mr Parsons (to whom I had spoken before), because Bridges when I said what Solicitor shall I go to, said, had better
to Stace." Dr Bridges told me 1 must havi attorney;
did not tell him I had been to Mr Parsons want to correct what I said yesterday. I meant to say I spoke to Mr Parsons ten days before the 13th March, i.e 3d March. I also wish to correct another matter as to d The first time I thought of the monopoly was twenty before the time for tendering was to expire (13th Ma namely, about 21st February.
In answer to the Chairman.-I am certain I did not cail Mr Parsons to talk purposely about this business; I went him on other business. I do not consider that Mr Pa would have acted wrong if he had acted against me
108
11
or in matters relating to the Opium business on the arch. I had not retained him; there was no under- hg between him and me, that he was not to act against Before I talked to Mr Parsons til he heard from me. the retainer, I did tell him I wanted him to act as my ey in the matter. I declare I did not engage Mr s to act for me in any way at all concerning the opium oly. If Mr Parsons says I did, he is mistaken. answer to Mr Dent,-I did not think that the fact of Dr es being Colonial Secretary as well as a Barrister would greater advantage to me than if I had engaged any On athen barrister. Many Chinamen may think so; I do not. the day when Hoey asked me whether I had not said that I be paid $400 to Dr Bridges as a cumshaw, he (Hoey) did
tell me he had seen the Attorney General.
TORNEY GENERAL,Recalled.
answer to the Chairman,The hour of the day when left me on the day when he made his statement was ten 2 or 2.30 P.M. I state this from recollecting that ulated that Hoey being a slow writer might have just to write to the government offices before 3 P.M. It n my opinion certainly before his meeting with Chun-tai- g, because he told me he was going to see him, and he ght he had better defer writing to the governor till after neeting.
THE COLONIAL TREASURER,-Called in and ex-
ed by the Chairman.
was present by the Acting Colonial Secretary's request in office when Chun-tai-kwong was questioned by him rding the letter of the Attorney General, in which in statements were made as to what the opium monopo- bad done and said in reference to the payment of $400 to Bridges. I did not know what was the object of my being d to come to the Acting Colonial Secretary's room. I was ent unwillingly, and when the matter was explained to me, d I thought the matter ought not to be entered on in the nce of the Attorney General," as it would be trying him babsence." I was over-ruled by the Acting Colonial Secre- and the Surveyor General (who was present) because as said I was merely asked to be present as a witness to #the Opium Monopolist's denial of the assertion contained letter. Mr Caldwell was there when I first came in, Chun-tai-kwong of course; Mr Hoey eame in afterwards. je best of my recollection the monopolist denied the truth Verything about the cumshaw; he admitted that he had Dr Bridges was a clever man, and could make or unmake and do what he liked with the Governor. He also said bad paid $400 at Dr Bridges's house, and that he should ably have to make it $1000. There were present when I came in the Chinaman (ie. the monopolist), Mr Cald- the Colonial Secretary, and the Surveyor General. Mr said that some of the facts stated in the Attorney al's letter were not true. He also said, that he consi- whatever he had told the Attorney General was privi- as having been communicated in professional confidence. d not use these words, but that was the effect of his
bent.
E SURVEYOR GENERAL.-Called in and examined. the Chairman.-I was present when the Opium Mo. list and Mr Hoey were questioned in the Colonial tary's Office as to certain statements made in a letter the Attorney General. Mr Caldwell was present, the surer, Chun-tai-kwong, and subsequently Mr Hoey. I by the request of Dr Bridges to hear the two latter ined in reference to some serious charges, which he told had been made against him. I heard the Attorney peral's letter read, Chun-tai-kwong denied having paid the at the office. He said he had paid it, but denied that d Hoey be paid at the office, or that he had said anything a "cumshaw." He admitted that he said that Dr Bridges clever man, and could make a law and tear it to pieces. certain he confessed this, and he also said, "there is arm in that surely." Hoey was very excited, and at first clined to answer at all. He said that his confidence had abused; he had told what he heard to the Attorney ral as his Counsel. He denied that he had told the ney General anything about a cumshaw. He said that it rue Chun-tai-kwong had told him he paid the $400 at the rnment offices, and that Chun-tai-kwong had said that ridges could do what he liked with the Governor, and a law to pieces, and put it together again. He denied ral times that he said anything to induce the Attorney eral to think that Dr Bridges had acted in any way un- ning a gentleman or government officer. Dr Bridges told hat he had been into the Governor, who had refused to fere in the matter.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.