CO129-347 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [4-6] — Page 477

Enclosure 2.

THE CHINA MAIL.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1908,

474 0.

1 25185

13 JUL 08)

The China Mail.

HONGKONG, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1908.

SUPREME COURT VACATION.

His Honour the Chief Justice in the letter we published yesterday pleasant- ly advances reasons for the position he has taken up in regard to the proposed extension of the Supreme Court Vacation. We congratulate His Honour upon the admirable good humour with which he handles his pen, and not even the epithet. "diatribes," used in connection with

certain of our innocent articles, moves us to retaliation, But we think it is due

to ourselves, if His Honour means by diatribes" continued reviling and reproach, to plead not guilty--as far

as he is concerned. It is true that

wewrote, in what could hardly be styled terms of eulogy, in reference to the volia face of certain of the solicitors of the Colony, but we have not written - anything in regard to the Chief Justice that the most ingenious and least

responsible of advocates could fairly'

describe as a distribe. The sound advice

was once giren, we believe by an aged Judge to a young one: "Never give your reasons." Sir Francis Piggott has given his reasons for the holiday faith that is in him, and inferentially invites criticism. The whole trouble, we learn from his letter, is the irrespon- sibility of barristers. These "wicked" gentlemen take a holiday when it suite them and make its period suit their own convenience without regard for that of the public. The Chief Justice is surprised that we have never cen- sured the barristers.

Now, does Sir

Francis Piggott seriously contend that the press should criticise or censure the idiosyncrasies of private indivi- duals with the sauce freedom as those of public servants or public services 7 Does he not see that in our capacity as one of the mouthpieces of the com. munity we are perfectly within our right in combatting any attempt on the part of civil servants to obtain more than what we may believe to be their due? With every desire to be ab solutely inoffensive and as respectful, as the high position and personal character of the Chief Justice compels, we would point out to His Honour that he is a civil servant. We have

i no desire to see him or any other civil servant overworked-this we have made so clear in previous references to the subject that it should be unnecessary to again define our attitude in this regard. Tut while we have always contended that civil servants should be treated fairly, and even generously, we have never abandoned our right to demand that civil servants should give value for money received. The Chief Justice, no doubt, would retort that he does give value for money received, even if he were to enjoy for two months "the cool fine weather of the north." But we would point out that we understand that he is uow entitled to one year's leave every three or four years and his proposition is. in effect, that his "holi- day" should be doubled! Sir Francis says, and of course we accept the state- ment without reservation, that he took the initiative in regard to the extension of the vacation in the public interest." But it may fairly he asked by the public-who authorised the Chief Jus- tice to say what was or what was not the "public interest?"

(1)