109
13
-
12
The Hongkong Government Gazette.
[Mr Hoey, who had been a second time summoned, not having appeared, and the Editors of the China Mail and Hongkong Register having stated, that they had no evidence to give,]
Committee adjourned till Monday, 17th May inst.,at10,30A.M.
H. T. DAVIES, Chairman.
Monday, 17th May instant, at 10.30. Present, Both Members. FRANCIS INNES HAZELAND, Esq., Solicitor,-Called in and examined.
By the Chairman.-I was present in the Court of Petty Sessions, when Mr Hoey was examined before you by Mr Day. He stated on oath on cross-examination by Mr Kings- mill, that he knew Dr Bridges had a direct interest in the Opium Monopoly.
Chairman,-When I tell you that I am convinced that M Hoey swore nothing to that effect, but simply to the effect that he knew that Dr Bridges took a great interest in the Opium Monopoly or Ordinance, do you adhere to your statement?
Witness, I do; because I took it down at the time; because I heard it, not because Mr Day told me. Mr Day said, "you've put down that, havn't you? Mr Day I believe did not tell ine what Mr Hoey had said.
[JUNE 19, 1858,
AMBROSE PARSONS, Esq.,-Called in and examined. By the Chairman.-On the 1st or 2d March, I think-and I have taken considerable pains to ascertain the date,at my office Chun-tai-kwong came to me alone; he said "I believe I know now who is to have the Opium Monopoly, and I want to engage your services." We talked on the subject for a little time, on the assumption that he was certainly to I told him I could not have it, though he did not state so. tell what my services would cost him, because I did not know what business was likely to arise out of it. I said, you had better give me a general retainer, and then we may be able to make some arrangement for doing the business for a round sum annually." He then said, "I hope it will He turn out well, for a large sum is to be paid for it." named some sum, I do not know what; my impression was that his tender had been accepted from the general tenor of his conversation, and not because he directly told me so. I certainly considered that he had retained me to act for him as solicitor in the Opium business. He was an old client of mine, and I had a great respect for him. I certainly should have refused a retainer in the business for any body else. Indeed, a day or two after, I told Mr Day that I had been retained. I think Chun-tai-kwong called on me once or twice after this, but I had no further conversation with him on the subject, until I found that proceedings had been taken on his behalf in the Opium business, for which I was not engaged. I made inquiries from which I found that in these proceedingsna By the Chairman.-I was present when Mr Hoey was solicitor was acting for him. When therefore I heard that some examined before you in the Court of Petty Sessions. I proceedings relating to the subject were coming on before in recollect that he stated on cross-examination by Mr Kings-Supreme Court, I had made up my mind to appear in Court, mill that he had not told Dr Bridges (when he was and to address the Chief Justice on the subject of the breach at the Government Offices to sign the bond connected with of etiquette and privilege that had been committed by a the Opium Monopoly) that he (Hoey) had no interest Counsel being engaged without being instructed by an At in it. Mr Kingsmill pressed him strongly on this point torney. Mr Stace, however, told me before the hearing, that This appeared to irritate Mr Hoey exceedingly. Mr Kings he was acting as Solicitor for Chun-tai-kwong. I therefore mill then asked Hoey why he did not tell Dr Bridges he took no further steps in the business. (Hoey) had an interest in it. Hoey made no direct replyi but as it appeared to me, he in great anger blurted out, "be cause I knew he bad an interest in it himself." Mr Kingsmill asked no further questions on this point; and when it came to my turn as Counsel for Hoey no re sidered that statement so irrelevant to the that I did not re-examine upon it. Althou whatever that Hoey uttered these words,
In answer to Mr Dent,-No comment was made on this statement of Hoey's by any one.
JOHN DAY, Esq.,-Called in and examined.
me to be very bitter against Dr Bridges agrastime, as supposed that it was at Dr Bridges's instigation that the proceed- ings in the Court were taken against him; so that his statement seemed to me suggested by this feeling, and the words them- selves were so vague and ambiguous, that they might have been interpreted in a variety of ways, and that it was impossible!! for me or any one else to say whether the word “interest," referred to Dr Bridges's interest as Counsel, interest as Mono- polist, or interest as legislator. I was the more convinced that in making use of those words he was actuated by a hostile ang, because this was no answer to the question put to him, Chairman. When I tell you that I, the presiding magistrate on the occasion referred to, am convinced that Mr Hoey simply stated to the effect that Dr Bridges took a great interest in the Opium Ordinance, do you adhere to your statement?
Mr Day,I am convinced that I am correct in my state ment. 1 told Mr Hazeland to take Mr Hoey's words down I think I did not repeat the words, but simply said "take this down." I should wish to state to the Committee the circumstances under which I told the Attorney General that Hoey had made this statement. The Attorney General (who had to my knowledge been consulted by Hoey on the case on which I appeared before you,) shewed me the draft of a letter he had written to the Government, in which he stated from memory words which he said he had before taken down from Hoey mouth, and which he (the Attorney General,) had been informed Hoey had since denied. I said I could well believe that Hoe had made such a statement, and that he had done so under the influence of strong feeling, against Dr Bridges, for having, as he supposed, instigated the proceedings in the Court of Pett Sessions against him; and I mentioned as a reason for my sp thinking, the fact that he had sworn before the Court of Petty Sessions what I have stated to the Committee, and that he was evidently on that occasion actuated by the same feelings as i attributed to him when making the statement to the Attorney General.
RAFAEL ROZARIO,-Called on and examined. By the Chairman.I am Interpreter at the Magistracy. By your direction I called at Mr Hoey's at 10.30 to-day. I saw his brotherhis barkeeper. He told me that Mr Hody had left this morning in the Williamette steamer "for Macao or Canton, or wherever the steamer went." He said he did not know when Mr Hoey could be back.
By Mr Dent. I have asked Chun-tai-kwong why hị deserted me in the matter; he did not give me any answer I do not know that Dr Bridges acted in the case of Chun-tai kwong in a different manner and one more strongly infringing idges dues
it had cost him. He was dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court in his case, and said that he thought the govern- ment had not used him well-that they had not properly supported him.
MR DOUGLAS LAPRAIK.-Called in and examined..... By the Chairman.—I am an inhabitant of long-standing in this place. I am acquainted with trade and business in various branches. [Mr Glatz's letter (1) handed to witness]. I do not consider this a tender at all. I should not only consider myself justified in rejecting, but bound to reject, such a proposal or offer; it is not a tender at all. I have been accustomed to see tenders of all kinds, and in great numbers, and I know the practice with regard to tenders here. I have nothing to state in reference to the subject of your inquiry, except perhaps that Chun-tai-kwong told me a few evenings ago, that after all he expected to clear $20,000 by the business.
CHARLES GLATZ.-Called in and examined.
sent this in to government. I have in no respect to complain By the Chairman.--[His letter (1) handed to him]. I of the conduct of the Acting Colonial Secretary in reference to the grant of the Opium Monopoly.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL.-Called in and examined. any of Chun-tai-kwong's partners about the Op um grant, was
By the Chairman. The first occasion on which I spoke to 1 should think, about the 13th March. I cannot speak posi tively. Ido not know the name of the man to whom I spoke, but I had seen him often before. He is a Rice-merchant here. He said to me on that occasion, that his firm had tendered, andhe wanted to know whether his tender had been accepted. This was at my office. do, because I am Protector of Chinese. I told him I knew He came to me I suppose, as all Chinesa nothing about it. A day or two after the last day for tender. ing De Bridges sent for me here, and asked me to make inquiry as to the Chuen-lee Company, whose tender he told me was the highest. I ascertained who they were through the man I have just referred to. I did not know that Chun-tai- kwong was a member of the firm, until the Rice-merchant told me so. I do not know whether Dr Bridges knew Chun- tai-kwong before; my impression is that he did not, because he asked me about him. I am convinced that Dr Bridges did not know that Chun-tai-kwong belonged to the Chuen-lee fir
had known A-chew their surety; and as soon as his name
7
JUNE 19, 1858.]
*
The Hongkong Government Gazette. token,
By Mr Dent-When I signed the second bond as surety, Chun-tai-kwong was with me, and it was at Dr Bridges's House.
DR BRIDGES.-Recalled, and examined.
was mentioned, I said he was good for $10,000. I never had never seen Chun-tai-kwong anywhere before the day I suggested to any of Chun-tai-kwong's firm, or to any one con- have mentioned, when I went with the message from Mr nected with it, to tender for this Monopoly. I never suggest-Caldwell, and therefore of course not at Dr Bridges's house, ed doing so to any one, except a Canton man, whose tender stood nor had I seen him anywhere with Dr Bridges. I was myself second on the list, and also I told two Opium-shop-keepers here interested in the grant of the Opium Monopoly; I held one (who had come to me to recommend that it should be disposed share out of 8 or 10 in the firm, who tendered under the name of by auction) that they had better tender, as it had been decided of "Tai-foong." Since I went to Macao about a month ago, to do the business by tender. I never told any one of Chun- no communication whatever has taken place between De tai-kwong's firm, or any one connected with it, that they were Bridges and myself. Dr Bridges's coolie called upon me sure of getting the Monopoly. I never told any one that any to-day, and told me Dr Bridges wished me to come up here. one was sure to get it. I told Chun-tai-kwong's partner, the have only seen Dr Bridges once since I went to Macao; Rice-dealer, that he had got it, after I had been informed that was when I returned for Macao; it was about 14 days so by Dr Bridges. I did go with Chun-tai-kwong to the go. Dr Bridges then said to me, "I have changed my house, Supreme Court, some time after he had obtained the Monopoly, I don't want you any more." He said I had been away too to get his name struck off the list of interpreters. I did so long, and discharged me. Dr Bridges has not spoken to me at his request, as he did not know how to set about it. On at all except as above, since I left for Macao. the 24th April, I was in the Acting Colonial Secretary's room,
YEONG-A-CHEW.--Examined. the Acting Colonial Secretary and the Surveyor General By the Chairman-I am surety for Chun-tai-kwong in the being there. A letter was brought to the Acting Colonial bond connected with the Opium Monopoly I told Chun- Secretary, which I afterwards learned was from the Attorney tai-kwong that the License was to be granted to his General. Dr Bridges requested me to send for Chun-tai-kwong, firm. I knew this because Mr Caldwell sent for me, and and Mr D'Almada was directed to procure Hoey's attendance. asked me whether I was security for the Chuen-lee, and Chun-tai-kwong came in when Dr Bridges, the Surveyor General then told me the Chuen-lee had obtained the License. I and myself were there. The Treasurer came in directly after have known A-hoong for ten years, and Chun-tai-kwong for Chun-tai-kwong. I am almost certain that before the Treasurer four years. Chun-tai-kwong and A-hoong can only have came in nothing was said by Chun-tai-kwong. I may now say become acquainted lately, because I know that A-hoong came I am certain, and for this reason, that Dr Bridges said to the to me after Chun-tai-kwong had got the License, and said he Surveyor General and Treasurer, that as they were next in wished I would introduce him to Chun-tai-kwong, as he official rank to himself, he wished them to hear what Chun-tai-wished to have a share in the License, to put in a Four kwong would say in reference to some statements contained Hundred Dollars. I told him that if he went to the Opium in the Attorney General's letter. He denied everything in Farm Office he would find Chun-tai-kwong. I do not re- regard to the statement about the $400 having been paid here collect that Chun-tai-kwong and A-chew were ever in my at the Government Offices, and as a cumshaw, to Dr Bridges, shop together, and that I told one who the other was. except that he said he had paid $400 to Dr Bridges at bis house as a retaining fee, and he said that, and that only, was what he told Hoey. He denied having mentioned anything about the $1,000. He laughed at the statement about Dr By the Chairman.-I cannot tell what day exactly Chun- Bridges being a clever man, and tearing up laws, and making tai-kwong first spoke about the retainer to me. It was I know the Governor do what he liked.
He denied having said this; after the 17th March. The retainer-$400--was paid in my but I do recollect that when Mr Hoey came, and made some dining-room on the day of the fire. I think on the day on allusion to this statement, that Chun-tai-kwong said something which the second bond was signed here. I am certain I shewed in reply. I don't recollect whether he said, "Well, there's no the tenders to Mr Lyall, to yourself, I believe, and generally great harm in that surely.' Mr Hoey afterwards came in, and and openly. The tender list was passed round the Council he was so excited that I cannot tell what he said. He however table on the 17th March, the day on which the Opium Or. denied having told the Attorney General that Chun-tai-kwongdinance was passed. I deny entirely that there was any refer had said he had paid $400 to Dr Bridges as a "cumshaw," ence whatever to "cumshaw," as connected with the $400 because he said that when he paid $250 to the Attorney General retaining fee; there could not be. I disbelieve that Mr Hoey as his retaining fee, he had remarked that it was reasonable, ever could have said so, and I disbelieve it, because Mr Hoey because he knew that Chun-tai-kwong had paid Dr Bridges when he was questioned by me, said what Mr Caldwell has $400 as a retaining fee. I think he said that he had told the already stated, namely, that the conversation with the Attorney Attorney General about Dr Bridges being a clever man, and so General was the comparative price of retainers. Mr Hoey on, and then Chun-tai-kwong made the remark which I have had been previously very angry and excited in his way of alluded to before. He was very indignant that what he consider-talk, but when he said this he spoke more composedly, and ed he had stated to Mr Anstey in confidence, as his Counsel, gave a reason for his statement. ahould be made use of in this way. He was asked whether he had the draft of a letter which he said had been drafted by the Attorney General. He said he had, and pulled out some papers from his pocket, but I did not see what they were. Mr Hoey was asked whether he would write down what he had said. He commenced writing, but I know nothing as to what he wrote. I never suggested to any of the Chuen-lee firm, or any one else whatever, to give Dr Bridges a retaining fee in this matter. The first time I ever heard about it, was on the occasion of the receipt of the Attorney General's letter above mentioned. Whatever I have mentioned that I have done in this matter I did as Protector of Chinese; I am continually in the habit of doing such things-every day. I know A-hoong, Dr Bridges's Comprador. I recollect Dr Bridges directed me to make inquiries as to whether he (A-hoong) had any interest in any of the tenders. I recollect, now that my attention is called to it, and that the list of tenders is handed to me, that it was thought that A-hoong might have an interest in the Tai-foong firm. I reported that A-foong had an interest in it. I think Dr Bridges did tell me that he supposed A-hoong to have a share in this shop, which he heard was a small rice-shop.
OW-A-HOONG.-Called in and examined.
In answer to Mr Dent.-The only person connected with Chun-tai-kwong's firm I had ever known before, was the surety A-chew.
Chairman.-What was it that Mr Hoey wrote in your room on this occasion ?
Hoey wrote in my room, I now produce (paper 0.) On the Witness. The paper which Mr Caldwell mentions that Mr occasion of his being questioned at my office about the state- the draft letter of the Attorney General; he said he thought ments in the Attorney General's letter, he was asked about he had it, and pulled a number of papers out of his pocket. I believe he did not succeed in finding it.
that I did not name any sum to Chun-tai-kwong as my fee; I In answer to Mr Dent,-I want it distinctly to be understood, told him that if what he offered was enough, I would accept it, otherwise I would not. one; it was not simply a retaining fee, it was a consulting fee The fee I do not consider a high for a year. I thought this plan better than charging a separate fee for every time Chun-tai-kwong might come and consult me; it was a less fee than I mentioned to Dent & Co. last year for somewhat similar business. I have spoken to Mr Day on the subject, and he told me that he considered the fee much too small a one. In the list of tenders before referred to, By the Chairman.-I have been Dr Bridges's Comprador and submitted to the Governor, you will see that I had noted for several years, until about a week or two ago. I know Chun-that the three tenders highest on the list had not been received tai-kwong by sight; he did ask me what he was to pay Dr till after date. I want also that the committee should Bridges; I told him $300 or $400-this was when I met him in observe, that the tender from the firm in which I thought my the road; I had seen Chun-tai-kwong once before, when I came comprador was interested, stands next in rank, and I could up to him to Government Offices, when the bond was to be signed, not therefore have recommended it to have been accepted. I when I was sent for by Mr Caldwell, to tell Chun-tai-kwong would further add that when Sir John Bowring requested me to bring up his security. I had seen A-chew two days before to undertake the Acting Colonial Secretaryship, we came to a this, but Chun-tai-kwong did not come in on that occasion; if distinct understanding, that my hours were to be my own, and Chun-tai-kwong says I saw him then, he must be mistaken. that my professional practice was not in any way to be inter-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.