Enclosure No. 2 to Despatch No. 34 of the 11th March, 1903.
Hon. Col. Secy.,
309
Paragraph 7. The Petition should have stated particular cases, so that the circumstances of each particular case could have been gone into, instead a vague statement is made.
In Mr. Crisp's letter of 19th May, 1901, he mentions the cases of Messrs. Bryan and Dandy; upon reference I find that both Messrs. Bryan and Dandy were appointed on the permanent Staff and not upon a three years' agreement; so that these cases are not precedents. Messrs. Bullin, Curwen, and McLeod all had their wives' passages paid, but none of them came on a three years' agreement. I have been unable to find the case of an Officer coming out on a three years' agreement, having his wife's passage out paid.
In the papers concerning Mr. Mossop the Secretary of State approves of the ruling of the then Acting Colonial Secretary (i.e. that rule 153 does not apply to Officers appointed on a 3 years' agreement). Mr. Crisp's case is identical with that of Mr. Mossop.
Mr. Crisp states that his pay is insufficient yet he finds it possible to engage the services of a Solicitor to draw up a petition, a course which I think, should be deprecated.
I have caused Mr. Crisp to be asked to state particular cases and he mentions Mr. and Mrs. Hather, Mr. and Mrs. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Bryan, Mr. and Mrs. Lambel, Mr. and Mrs. Carter, Mr. and Mrs. Connelly, Mr. and Mrs. Lyons.
In all these cases the engagement was on the permanent Staff, and they cannot therefore be taken as precedents. Mr. Crisp has evidently become confused between the case of an Officer on a temporary agreement to serve for three years and the case of an Officer engaged on the permanent Staff, who signs an agreement, that if he relinquishes his post within three years, the passage money has to be refunded.
(Sgd.) C. McI. Messer.
4th March, 1902.
Enclosure No. 2 to Despatch No. 34′ of the 11th. March, 1903.
Hon. Col. Secy.','
309
Paragraph 7. The Petition should have stated particular cases, so that the circumstances of each particular case could have been gone into, instead a vague statement is made.
In Mr. Criso's letter of 19th. May, 1901, he mentions the cases of Messrs. Bryan and Dandy; upon reference I find that both Messrs. Bryan and Dandy were appointed on the permanent Staff and not upon a three years' agreement; so that these cases are not precedents. Messrs. Bullin, Curwen, and McLeod all had their wives' passages pail, but none of them came on a three years' agree- ment. I have been unable to find the case of an Officer coming out on a three years' agreement, having his wife's passage out pail.
In the papers concerning Mr. Mossop the Secretary of State approves of the ruling of the then Acting Colonial Secretary. (i.9. that rule 153 does not apply to Officers appointed on a 3 years' agreement.)Hr. Crisp's case is identical with that of Vr. Mossop.
Mr. Crisp states that his pay is insufficient
yet he finds it possible to engage the services of a Solicitor to draw up a petition, a course which I think, shoull be deprecated.
I have causel Yr. Orisp to be asked to state particular cases and he mentions
Mr. and Mrs. Hather,
Hr. and Mrs. Moore.
Mr. and Mrs. Bryan,
Mr. and Mrs. Lambel,
Ir. and Mrs. Carter,
Mr. and rs. Connelly, Mr. and Mrs. Lyons.
In all these cases the engagement was on the permanent Staff, and they cannot therefore be taken as precedents. Mr. Crisp has evidently become confused between the case of an Officer on a temporary agree- ment to serve for three years and the case of an Officer engaged on the permanent Staff, who signs an agreement, that if he relinquishes his post within three years, the passage money has to be refunded.
(Sa.) C. McI. Messer.
4th. March, 1902. ·
t
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.