or unworthy of belief, having in view Mr. Seth's previous record. The only mitigation in this expression of disbelief in my statement is the suggestion that my memory must have been at fault.
In paragraph 4 of the letter under reply, Your Excellency has misinterpreted my use of the expression "side issue". I have not accused Mr. Seth of falsehood as a "side issue". I said that the question whether he has made a false statement or not is a "side issue", the obvious meaning of which is that it is not the primary issue under discussion which is far more important. Nor have I ever requested that this question should be submitted to the Secretary of State. The reference of this question to the Secretary of State was made by Your Excellency: (see paragraph 2 of Your Excellency's letter of 12th March.)
In the same paragraph of the letter under reply Your Excellency declines to communicate my letter to Mr. Seth, because in Your Excellency's view it is not "fitting that the Governor should be made the intermediary of such a communication in such circumstances". My request was made because my letter dealt with a matter which had formed the subject of a communication between the Colonial Secretary and Mr. Seth, and the rules of official correspondence obviously required that my letter
ateɗreri)
‚anoxпo,dwoll amorque
.002[(dotek „dalE
.IIX
.Y 9 0
36
or unworthy of belief, having in view Mr. Seth's previous
record. The only mitigation in this expression of disbelief in
my statement is the suggestion that my memory must have been at
fault.
-xt woy sgbaIwondos od wozor esið svæð J
.*M to Jos¿dire ade no doraM „dres to rozzal aʼvous [190-
wo of gninaen va yovnos oð elds gateď zon at stanutrotnu me
VIøv anone di narral van gatammoq-er no ¿quoddla t YongLeox
vas ni don reob Toððal a1yone!enxã woy to ẽ dqargarat .ntaiq
anol v.brawnot dug svar I doldw awolv erit Jnaestqer yew
VIARA909MNu di arahast reoltto sviða¬datnimha na as sonetreqKO
Vrstnamels art to yonelƒsox" woy vď bahriman ed of em rot
form as at solvien edź to Tadrise toinut daom sdt dat siqloning
vfIeups as at ti jug .taedzld ert es beratied ad of befriene
-dua e tentaga ebam of sgts: o a neɗw tade sigtɔning Visinensis
ald vɗ (*soitto etenibrodua vitreg a to) teɔltto stanibro-
ari aansoed viartam antas tea ed of ton al agrado dent teiro
霍
va to è rigsryeraq at blan I daw daeqer of ‚yneh od soavorio
bernatang agtulo add oðri valupal na" „Instant .brƐs to Tajjal
Iatnolo) erit fakɗw Testam edi dttw gntIseh to caw vino art at
WOY BAWOo dend gatwolfot to beajan) ,"estrosen anottalıger
nt ¡Istueb a'rite? .*M nl aonebitnoo bea8exqxo nerf YousifsoxH
‚eiður 88 tunnetada vi betoeter Bad yonsfleox" woy ebrow reɗto
10
2.
In paragraph 4 of the letter under reply,
Your Excellency has misinterpreted my use of the expression
*side issue". I have not accused Mr. Seth of falsehood as a
"side issue". I said that the question whether he has made a
false statement or not is a "side issue", the obvious meaning
of which is that it is not the primary issue under discussion
which is far more important. Nor have I ever requested that this
question should be submitted to the Secretary of State. The
reference of this question to the Secretary of State was made
by Your Excellency: (see paragraph 2 of Your Excellency's
letter of 12th. March.)
3.
In the same paragraph of the letter under
reply Your Excellency declines to communicate my letter to Mr.
Seth, because in Your Excellency's view it is not "fitting that
the Governor should be mide the intermediary of such a communica –
-tion in such circumstances". My request was made because my
letter dealt with a matter which had formed the subject of a
communication between the Colonial Secretary and Mr. Seth, and
the rules of official correspondence obviously required that ry
letter
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.