Under reply I gathered that Your Excellency had had interviews with Mr. Seth, from the 3rd paragraph of Your Excellency's letter of 3rd February, in which Your Excellency said that my letter had been referred to Mr. Seth for explanation, "since it appeared to be contradictory to later statements by him".
5. In paragraph 2 of the letter under reply Your Excellency says that I have declined to accept the Secretary of State's decision on the main question. One of the reasons which induced me to write my letter of 13th February was that the Secretary of State's decision was couched in the form of approval of Your Excellency's views, and Your Excellency's despatch to the Secretary of State expressing those views did not convey any definite meaning to my mind. When I asked for an explanation, Your Excellency referred me to the Secretary of State, so that I am still in the dark as to what the cases are in which in Your Excellency's opinion the Registrar is subordinate to the Chief Justice, and therefore I am unable to appreciate the distinction which Your Excellency draws in the last part of paragraph 4 of the letter under reply.
6. Throughout the whole of this lengthy correspondence Your Excellency appears to me to have failed to appreciate the motives which have actuated me in the action I have taken; and I desire in conclusion to put the following statement
18
33
orise edit dzuovit dite? .M of betsolíummos eď hlvora mejjel
avær of drag ym no Joe1105 meed over ton blwow #1 .Iemnado
nt tv8 .dteƐ .*: od yons!!aozk quoy of "estel ya botaɔinuvmoo
won evad I Jostdue ant no bise asx yonelleɔx" tuo¥ taw to weiv
.oa enob
tom bib yonelleoxH woy Jend ATAKOT TAV! T
Iatnofo edit of metrel a1ɗite2 .TM en of stentnurmoo of etstlaed
fremstata add to džund add to Islash s bentetnoo Motɗw "rate"o#2
.vdiostov vw no noideturqni na vlennupaanon bre abam “bad I
evad Enido I donneo yɔnaffaɔz“ zOY
.brƐ to rottel wou to 8 dqsinereq to tootte (lut eit boatlBor
adost mladreo to yonsLisɔx“ quoy hair otal bar I
• Yısırdar
**W of navtol ym barrėter yongifsox" toy „fter Ti gatareonos
VIÊupne on Jnarodada yi to džund silt galyneb eld no bas,dtek
a dova mi am of babrawnot visner at Tortef ald dud abar et
•
alɗte2 .1M ni Telled a1onsifsort quoy se of vernos of as 19niam
ał doiɗw tsifodalb a Jumatata ym ni tolledsib bas
(Latnsh
bns,fors} .d‡S£ to "siteI a1gons[{@ox# *no¥ at beraenqxs nisys
hrs „notyran sidarwonon bus gnol etf to atost oft no beasd al
gnol va mI •1ab40 molvisë Isiteqri arld hebrews need gatved ald
tísah oa gated agrafo avotneɛ a to nwond zeven evasi I eatvısa
redési ort to E Niqstysraq od bianet det"
"AD!!!
.rt tw
under reply I gathered that Your Excellency had had interviews
with Mr. Seth, from the 3rd. paragraph of Your Excellency's
letter of 3rd. February, in which Your Excellency said that my
letter had been referred to Mr. Seth for explanation, "since it
appeared to be contradictory to later statements by him”.
5.
In paragraph 2 of the letter under reply
Your Excellency says that I have declined to accept the
Secretary of State's decision on the main question. One of the
reasons which induced me to write my letter of 13th. February
was that the Secretary of State's decision was couched in the
form of approval of Your Excellency's views, and Your Excal-
-lency's despatch to the Secretary of State expressing those
views did not convey any definite meaning to my mind. When I
asked for an explanation, Your Excellency referred me to the
Secretary of state, so that I am still in the dark as to what
the cases are in which in Your Excellency's opinion the
>
+
Registrar' is subordinate to the Chief Justice, and therefore I
am unable to appreciate the distinction which Your Excellency
draws in the last part of paragraph 4 of the letter under reply.
6.
Throughout the whole of this lengthy
correspondence Your Excellency appears to me to have failed to
appreciate the motives which have actuated me in the action I
have taken; and I desire in conclusion to put the following statement
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.