749
letter engaging me to perform it; that Mr. Drayson had been in the office during the whole time of my stay in Hongkong and was therefore conversant with the fact that I was being asked to do the work; and finally that the Hongkong Government had had ample time and opportunity of ascertaining Mr. Drayson's ability and readiness to do the work before approaching me at all on the subject. I further informed the Hongkong Government that I was advised that its letter (enclosure A) taken in connection with the circumstances under which it had been written, constituted a definite engagement and that as I was still ready to perform my part of the contract I should hold the Hongkong Government responsible for the payment of my fee of £100.
10. To this letter I received a reply (Enclosure E) stating that the ground on which the Government of Hongkong had decided not to engage my services was that I had made conditions (in my letter, Enclosure B) by which I was to receive assistance not contemplated when the Government of Hongkong made its offer to me, and that the Government of Hongkong was under no obligation to employ me and had no desire or intention of doing so, and that it could not recognise my claim to monetary compensation.
11. The above are the essential facts of the case, and my concise statement of them will be borne out by reference to the attached papers.
12. In conclusion I beg most respectfully to submit that the action of the Hongkong Government has been discourteous, unfair, and that it has been marked throughout by bad faith statements which I make on the following grounds:
A. The request that I should do the work came spontaneously from the Hongkong Government without any solicitation on my part.
B. I was explicitly informed that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had approved my appointment.
C. Presuming therefore that the Hongkong Government really had at one time the intention of employing my services the facts justify a belief on my part that the real reasons for a change of intention on the part of the Hongkong Government cannot be those given me by Mr. May in his letters, for the following reasons:
1. In the letter informing me that my services are not required (Enclosure A) the two reasons assigned are FIRST that the indexing work has already been undertaken by Mr. Drayson, and SECOND that the work of revising the system of filing and recording documents has already been completed and is actually in working order at the time of the despatch of Mr. May's letter.
2. In regard to the first reason I may content myself by repeating that Mr. Drayson could have been asked at any time to do the work BEFORE I was engaged to do it.
3. In regard to the second reason, namely that the work of revising the system of filing and recording documents was already completed, a comparison of the dates of Mr. May's letters and my own discloses the fact that THE WORK OF REVISION MUST ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN COMMENCED BEFORE THERE HAD BEEN AFFORDED ME ANY OPPORTUNITY OF REPLYING TO THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT I SHOULD UNDERTAKE IT.
(Mr. May's letter asking me to do the work is dated October 29, 1903. As I was known to be in the interior of Borneo the letter could not have been expected to reach me for a month. Allowing a month for my reply to reach Hongkong, it is clear that the Hongkong Government could not have expected to get my letter until early in December. As a matter of
2.
749
letter engaging me to perform it; that Mr. Drayson had been in the office during the whole time of my stay in Hongkong and was therefore conversant with the fact that 1 res being asked to do the work; and finally that the Hongkong Government had had jangle time and opportunity of ascertaining Mr.Drayson's ability and readiness to do the work before approaching me at all on the subject. I further informed the Hongkong
overnment that I was advised that its letter ( enclosure A.) taken in connection with the circumstances under which it had been written, constituted a definite engage- ment and that as I was still ready to perform my part of the contract I shouli boll the Hongkong Government responsible for the payment of my fee of £ 100.
10. To this letter I received a reply (Enclosure E.) stating
that the ground on which the Government of Hongkong had decided not to engage my sery- ices was that i had made conditions (in my letter,Enclosure B.) by which I was to receive assistance not contemplated when the Government of Hongkong made its offer to me, and that the Government of Hongkong was under no obligation to employ me and had net desire or intention of doing so, and that it could not recognise my clain to monetary compensation.
11. The above are the essential facts of the case, and my concise statement of them will be borne out by reference to the attached papers.
12. In conclusion I beg most respectfully to submit that the action of the Hongkong Government has been discourteous,unfair, and that it has been
arked throughout by bad faith statements which I make on the following grounds :-
A. The request that I should do the work came spontaneously from the Hongkong Government without any solicitation on my part.
9.1 was explicitly informed that the Secretary of State for
the Colonies had approved my appointment.
0. Presuming therefore that the Hongkong Government really hal at one time the intention of employing my services the facts justify a belief on my part that the real reasons for a change of intention on the part of the Hongkong Government cannot be those given me by Mr. May in his letters, for the following reasons :-
1. In the letter informing me that my services are
not required ( Enclosure A.) the two reasons assigned are FIRST that the indexing work has already been undertaken by Mr. Drayson, and SECOND that the work of revising the system of filing and recording documents has already been completed and is actually in working order at the time oft
of the despatch of Mr. May's letter.
2. In regard to the first reason I may content ry- self by repeating that Mr.Drayson could have been asked at any time to do the work BEFORE I was engaged to do it.
3. In regard to the second reason, namely that the work of revising the system of filing and recording documents was already completed, a comparison of the dates of Mr. May's letters and my own disclos- es the fact that THE WORK OF REVISION MUST ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN COMMENCED BEFORE THERE HAD BEEN AFFORDED ME ANY OPPORTUNITY OF REPLYING TO THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT I SHOULD UNDERTAKE IT.
(Mr.May's letter asking me to do the work is dated October 29, 1903. As I was known to be in the interior of Borneo the letter cold not have been expected to reach me for a month. Allowing a month for my reply to reach Hongkong, it is clear that the Hongkong Government coul not have expected to get my letter until early in December. As a matter of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.