Sessional_Paper_1923 — Page 82

77

+

With regard to Messrs. Moller and Williamson's proposal to the Colonial Secre-

tary that this case should stand over".

Minute by the Attorney General: 1st June, 1921 :-

"As a matter of fact the arrangement was made at the request of the plaintiffs, and I remember that I felt some difficulty about agreeing because there was always the possibility that Mr. Fletcher might not return and he is the only person who knows anything about the facts".

Crown Solicitor to Messrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, & Harston, 6th June, 1921 :-

"I would remind you that the arrangement that the action should stand over

was made at the request of your clients".

Messrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, & Harston to Crown Solicitor, 7th June, 1921 :---

"We think that the arrangement referred to, although actually made at our clients' request, was in fact (and was so understood by both sides) a mutual agreement for the mutual benefit of both sides as Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Williamson were, at the time that the arrangement was made under- stood to be about to leave the Colony ".

In "The humble petition of Messrs. A. R. Burkill & Sons of Shanghai, Messrs. Moller & Co. (Shanghai) Limited of Shanghai" and others, dated the 17th June, 1921, the following statement appears "On the 25th August, 1920, the Government con- sented to the case being postponed ".

Mr. Fletcher concurs that the arrangement, though proposed by the owners, was mutual. A representation was made to him that certain actions, involving similar claims against the Imperial Government, were pending at home, and he entirely agreed with Mr. Moller and Mr. Williamson that it would be a mere waste of money for the owners to proceed with their case in Hongkong, when it appeared possible that the matter in dispute would shortly be settled at home, at the expense of litigants in the Courts in London.

The third point is the suggestion that, in agreeing to the stay of proceedings, Mr. Fletcher had some information regarding the intention of the Government to pass an Indemnity Ordinance, which he concealed from the owners.

Messrs. Deacon, Looker, Deacon, & Harston wrote to the Crown Solicitor on the 7th June, 1921 :-

"We do not know whether the Government had the present proposed Ordi- nance in mind when this arrangement (for the stay of proceedings) was come to. If it had, disclosure thereof should have been made."

The Crown Solicitor replied on the 16th June, 1921 :-

"When the above arrangement was made last August, the Government had no Indemnity Ordinance of any kind in contemplation and had never considered the question of introducing an Indemnity Ordinance."

The first proposal for an Indemnity Ordinance came from the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a circular despatch, dated the 28th December, 1920, which reached Hongkong on the 13th February, 1921. Mr. Fletcher left the Colony for Englard on the 1st January, 1921, and on that date neither he nor the Government had contemplated any question of an Indemnity Ordinance. The Governor wrote to the Secretary of State on the 27th November regarding the legal proceedings which had been commenced, and he made no suggestion of any possibility of a solution by means of an Indemnity Bill. The circular despatch of the 28th December, 1920, is the opening document on the file dealing with the proposal for an ordinance.

Mr. Fletcher arrived in England at the end of February, 1921, and, on a date which he cannot recall, he was informed at the Colonial Office of the circular despatch, and his opinion was invited. He referred to the arrangement for the stay of legal proceedings