CO129-391 - Acting Governor Claud Severn Governor Sir May - 1912 [7-8] — Page 42

0.0.

ni di

A

-la. Ford

JE

BJ JODE

dont and

77

ON BRI

golifunï v. „ninaonge

om vil

VAL I

10 CUB..

I think it advisable that there should be a clear statement of the facts which have occurred in connection with the dispute which has

40 HEAD 31 JUL 1? arisen over the Revised Edition of the Laws of the Colony in conse- quence of the unfortunate attitude which the Government has chosen to assume in regard to my work. That attitude may be briefly but accurate- ly summarised thus that I have put forward an imperfect work and

ave insisted on its being accepted, and that the Government on the other hand has refused to accept the work as the Laws of the Colony on account of its alleged inaccuracy. So far as I am concerned nothing could be further than from the truth.

My attitude is very clearly defined in the Preface, and I should

have thought it incapable of being misunderstood except by people who do not wish to understand. I have had too long an experience of print-

ing work, and also of revision work, not to know how liable one is in

the multitude of little details that have to be looked after to make

mistakes. The conditions under which this work especially was done

made pitfalls in the path at every turn, and I have always been con-

scious of the possibility of errors creeping in. It was gor this rea-

son that when six months ago the time came to begin verifying the work I asked for the assistance of the Heads of Departments concerned. As

there seems to be a good deal of misconception on this point I will

deal with it first.

I wrote to the Government (the exact date has escaped me, but it is

not material; suggesting that as the Revision Ordinances had become

very complicated it would be better that each Department should take

its share of the process of verification. I went as far, I think at

the Attorney General's request, as grouping all the Ordinances under

different heads, assigning to each Department those which specially

concerned it. The suggestion met with no support; the Departments were

too busy (there seemed to be a lurking suspicion that I was trying to

shark my own work), the Attorney feneral grumbled, he had not time,

and so I was compelled to withdraw the suggestion. When what has been

called the "independent scrutiny" was said to be necessary I naturally

referred to the fact that six months ago I had myself proposed it with-

out success and that to insist on it now before paying the final instal-

ment or considering the question of extra remuneration was most unfair. I can only characterise what took place at the interview which I had