Sessional_Paper_1908 — Page 735

615

CHAMBERS, SUPREME COURT, HONGKONG, 29th September, 1908,

SIR,—I am much obliged for the courteous information conveyed in Your Excellency's letter of the 26th instant informing me of the actual words used by Your Excellency in your speech in Council on the subject of the constitution of the Full Court. The China Mail and the Daily Press reported it in the way in which I referred to it in my letter; and it seems to me probable that the reporters jumped from the beginning of Your Excellency's remarks to the end, seizing on the words "the appeal is a farce" as making good copy. 1 much regret to inform Your Excellency that the words actually used in your speech are open to the same objection that I have already expressed to Your Excellency, and are entirely at variance with the traditions of the Bench. No one who is familiar with the work of a Judge could suggest that if after hearing fuller evidence in a case or in several cases, the Chief Justice reversed his former decision he did not know his own mind, because it may be precisely this fuller information (which on appeal is fuller argument, and rarely fuller evidence) which has made the case plainer than it was on the first hearing when this information was not forthcoming. Nor could there be any innuendo" to the effect that he has been influenced by his Junior. The Chief Justice is only primus inter pares. Full Court as at present constituted enables the Chief Justice to have the assistance of the Puisne Judge; discussion on abstruse legal questions often makes points clearer than they were when first dealt with by one Judge. And for the reasons given in my former letter the fact that the Chief Justice with the assistance of the Puisne Judge confirms his former decision cannot in any circumstances render the appeal a farce.

44

The

2. The defects of the present system are patent; but with much respect, they are not those which Your Excellency has pointed out. And the emphasis which has been laid upon them by Your Excellency cannot fail to be very detrimental to the prestige of the Court among both Europeans and Chinese, which it has been my constant aim to maintain at the highest level.

3. With reference to the last paragraph of the letter under reply Your Excellency is always very good in assuring me that my opinion is not well-founded when I say that the Government shows no consideration to the Chief Justice. I can only say that 3 years experi- ence does not bear out Your Excellency's courteous intentions. The question is one which I have very much at heart, and so long as I am Chief Justice of the Colony I shall continue to do so. Let me put to Your Excellency two instances which will explain ny meaning.

For 3 years I have pointed out that the Chief Justice has to do the work of two Judges. Acting on information which was never submitted to me Sir M. Nathan practically informed the Secretary of State that this was not a fact. I have at last through Your Excellency's courtesy been shewn this information, and have pointed out that it was inaccurate from beginning to end. I have received no answer, so that I must assume that my opinion is disregarded. Even the carefully drawn-up Tables which I had prepared and which support my statement have elicited no comment. Even as one Judge doing the work of two at certain periods of the year I have to work "double tides" to get through the work. One of such periods which has covered the last 3 or 4 months is just over and yet Your Excellency has informed the Council in spite of my re-iterated opinion that there is no immediate necessity for a third Judge. The effect of this on my mind can only be that the opinion of the Government is that I only want a third Judge appointed to save myself work. Surely Your Excellency will agree that this is a case of want of consideration for the Chief Justice.

Let me take another case. There was a suggestion in one of Your Excellency's letters that an Appeal Court could be formed with the assistance of the Judge of Shanghai. I learn from Your Excellency's speech in Council that the suggestion has been forwarded to the Secretary of State in the concrete form that the Judge of Shanghai should come to Hongkong to sit as an Appeal Judge twice a year. If Your Excellency had asked my opinion before sending this suggestion forward, I should have pointed out the difficulties in the way of making the scheme effective, and the inconveniences which must result from it: that changes must be made in the law and Code of Procedure: and that it can only work by most seriously hampering the other business of the Court. This quite apart from the inherent objections to the scheme.

Page 735Page 736