No 2
053
ques yo
the
stay- no 20056 gives the exunction Lefore the Cout on a cremeval charge of one of ttx duspect us of Polres a fee It's as routere.
the
No 20055 fives the disminal of another suspectar. I Crective (mail.
Hoppers awal. This paper
entaires the au mut of
the
hial Lefse the Coventive (merel
of another public officer, a lleid Cleck, & of his tuteur
The fuestion is
2 that Peutere adequate? I do wish think so
Au
neute (funt fact)?
have drawn attention to the
lus dessen beut
weater of the fuel, fount draw attention lette
queer yote
un fanciers
ess
femeral
leveren from from
the attowy
Cantiary
wheel
llet
desmiral reveld be an
on inne epedient senterve
I cafes to reiving
exejject
with wh
dis favour the punate letter
дескі Яна велаз to hn Lecea, Secal Communications.
M
My try
Prevent the A Gerne stoped that sharper
This bundy shoply
A thr
ffore
arefecem that
the My Charger arre
Cmnem véleke ications, while munturefl matters of administration,
adinary
beem to me most impreopen in a judicial or quasi judicial case
My dear Lucas,
12th August 1897.
By this mail there is going home my report on the gambling scandal and I dare say some other despatches concerning two men (Osmund and Hore) who have been dealt with by the Executive Council in connection with the same matter.
Of course the evidence against both these men was originally obtained by myself so I am well conversant with it.
The papers here have it, and they have no doubt obtained their information direct from the men themselves, as the proceedings in the Executive Council are all confidential, that Hore has been dismissed and Osmund allowed to resign on a reduced pension. As these sentences require the confirmation of the Secretary of State I take the liberty of writing to you, because I feel strongly that the sentence on Osmund is quite inadequate. In fact I will go so far as to say that the decision of the Council is a wrong one.
The case against Osmund is as strong as it well can be. It is far stronger than the case against Witchell on which we got an unanimous verdict from a Hong Kong jury which is saying a great deal.
Osmund has been suspected for some time for taking money in connection with emigration matters, and I have
S 22/10
No 2
053
ques yo
the
stay- no 20056 gives the exunction Lefore the Cout on a cremeval charge of one of ttx duspect us of Polres a fee It's as
routere.
the
No 20055 fives the disminal of another suspectar. I Crective (mail.
Hoppers awal. This paper
Мерорис
entaires the au mut of
the
hial Lefse the Coventive (merel
of another public officer, a lleid Cleck, & of his tuteur
The fuestion is
2 that Peutere
adequate? I do wish think so
Au
.:
neute (funt fact)?
have drawn attention to the
lus dessen beut
weater of the fuel, fount
draw attention lette
queer yote
un fanciers
ess
femeral
leveren from from
the attowy
Cantiary
wheel
llet
desmiral reveld be an
on inne epedient senterve
I cafes to reiving
exejject
with wh
dis favour the punate letter
дескі Яна велаз
to hn Lecea, Secal
Communications.
M
My try
Prevent the A Gerne stoped that sharper
This bundy shoply
A thr
ffore
arefecem that
the My Charger arre
Cmnem véleke
ications, while munturefl
matters of administration,
adinary
beem to me most impreopen in a judicial or quasi judicial
case
My dear Lucas,
2
493
12th
August 1897.
By this mail there is going home my report
on the gambling scandal and I dare say some other des-
patches concerning two men (Osmund and Hore) who have
been dealt with by the Executive Council in connection
with the same matter.
with it.
Of course the evidence against both these men was
originally obtained by myself so I am well conversant
The papers here have it, and they have no
doubt obtained their information direct from the men
themselves, as the proceedings in the Executive Council
are all confidential, that Hore has been dismissed
and Osmund allowed to resign on a reduced pension. As
these sentences require the confirmation of the Secre-
tary of State I take the liberty of writing to you,
because I feel strongly that the sentence on Os:und is
In fact I will go so far s to say
quite inadequate.
that the decision of the Council is a wrong one.
The case against Osmund is as strong as it well can be.
It is far stronger than the case against Witchell on
which we got an unanimous verdict from a Hong Kong
jury which is saying a great deal.
time
Osmund has been suspected for some for taking
money in connection with emigration matters, and I
have
S 22/10
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.