CO129-348 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [7-10] — Page 578

the Chief Justice.

574

}

•

todd optrobrev 10

rid to mo

da: oghtre q2}

Man Cibre fat A

me 13 sony est H

verse 2 10 400%

* ta ut at mivut huj

* Van ayely at

intrik ob tamens af 2.dankt ef win Moorg i got fot fos

dom det en douz od begon att nt al boy

30

ald JA TO*to* fo

the ban 10 y

seninud rodnom maibroodxa est o fanozora

I open at bagoldder Julog Fest aut tM het evnd T

a y Cumbyde st

at vhnox ud

Dr. quod sae bude mi mobor saent: a rot

mgehend end erooro Verit morty denso ziert raad

Ja od fot fol ent

frigooon or blur idish an bad eri otrře od ei og jurth Luda

mona dotrim Jaeumeroß eitt to ob diete od ot eno Your I.GI

Job

The position was avery simple one. The Chief Justice is

empowered to act as I had done: if the reasons for any

action were not sufficiently explicit in my first letter,

they were clear from the second of 24th December: yet

from first to last no expression of opinion or request

for fuller information was ever made to me; but running

through the correspondence there is an unaccountable

spirit of veiled hostility to the proposal.

Even if the first letter of the Colonial Secretary to the

Chamber the opinion of the chamber is not asked in a

simple way, but the enquiry is whether the Chamber thinks

the proposed lengthening of the vacations will be detri-

mental to the commercial interests of the Colony, which

almost amounts to a hint that the Government will be

pleased if the Chamber should express that opinion.

But more extraordinary still is the letter of His Excel-

lency the Governor dated 22nd February, which was the fine

communication I had had on a subject which I had first

written about on 7th December. This letter adopts bodily

the conclusions of the Chamber and therefore of the 8

Solicitors, describing them as containing arguments

against the proposal which are so conclusive that His

Excellency regretted he could not support the proposal.

I must call the Secretary of State's attention specially

to the fact that this letter was in answer to mine of the

Feb- 14th, in which I had informed His Excellency that owing to

certain objections which some of the junior members of the

profession had raised there would have to be further dis-

there fore cussion, and that I had put my request that the question

should be laid before the Council into abeyance.

I have had a long experience in official life, and I sub-

mit without fear of contradiction that a more astonishing

disregard of the courtesies of correspondence could hardly