320
THE KAISER'S INDISCRETION.
THE HONGKONG, WEEKLY PRESS AND
by that of the German Emperor. Apart from the question as to whether it was actually the
KAISER'S plan that was followed, this confession of HIS MAJESTY that while Germany was publicly committed to an attitude of strict neutrality, he was privately communicating to England in formation from his officers of the disposi- tion of the Ber forces, and actually suggesting a plan of campaige, must come 88 a startling bit of information to the chancelleries of Europe. It does seem extraordinary that the Kaiser should have given himself away to the world in this manner, and this feature of the interview will not, we imagine, be soon forgotten. His Majesty's defence of his naval policy is but little less startling than the other features of the statement. We take the meaning, of this defence to be that the growing naval strength of the Asiatic Powers threatens danger to European commerce. No one, HIS MAJESTY remarked, could foresee the possibilities of the Far East iu days not so far distant as some would have us believe. It would have been extremely interesting to have HI MAJESTY'S views on this subject in greater detail. As it is we can only aurmise that the KAISER is looking forward to the time when China will have provided herself with a power- ful navy which, united to that of Japan, might be in a position to dictate to Europe. If that represents the outlook in His MAJESTY's mind, we fear he will not be able to persuade the world that there is any early prospect of China possessing a navy which will constitute a nenace to European inter- ests in the Pacific. That China will one day possess such a navy there can be no doubt whatever. The ambition exists, but before it can be achieved administrative and finn. cial reforms of a sweeping character are necessary. How soon these may come no man can tell. In this part of the world the future is certainly pregnant with great possibilities and to count those possibilities and prepare to meet them is the highest form of statesmanship, Now that the British nation is told from the mouth of the KAISER himself what ideas bare inspired Germany's naval expansion scheme and that His MAJESTY anticipates that the fleets of England and Germany will be speaking together in the great debates of the future, the misrepresentation and suspicion which HIS MAJESTY has so deeply resented as a personal insult will doubtless be checked, though the public opinion of England is not by any means prepared to accept the KAISER's view of the "yellow peril." We are inclined to think that on the whole His MAJESTY'S indiscrest explanations will prove more embarrassing to Germany than conciliatory to England.
¦
|
(Daily Press, 31st October.) Ir is a most unusual thing for monarchs to lay bare their minds to the world by means of an "interview" in- tended for publication in the newspaper press. But inasmuch as the London Daily Telegraph announces that the interview with His Majesty the KAISER which it publishes was communicated to it on unimpeachable authority," we may take it that His Majesty has deemed this to be the most effectual way of combatting the suspicions in England, engendered by Ger- many's programme of naval expansion. Had the EMPEROR confined his observa tions entirely to that question it is very probable that His Majesty's explanations would have promptly had the influence and effect desired, but the remarkable utterances which practically ascribe England's success in the war against the Boers to the assist- ance givenby His Majesty in response to a grief-stricken letter from QUEEN VICTORIA are of so startling and sensational a character that they will probably obscure for a time the main purpose of the interview. His refusal to receive the Boer delegates, he said, caused the collapse of the effort of the Boers to secure European intervention in the war; and he declined the invitation of France and Russia to join in humilia ing England by intervening when the war was at its height. Furnished as these statements obviously are, in this connection, as proofs of His MAJESTY'S strong friendship for England, they cannot but stir the recollection of certain historical declarations by the Ger- man Chancellor which are placed by these revelations in quite a new light. "For us," said Count VON BUELOW, the Chancell r, "intervention was precluded by the gene ral int rnational situation, as well as by our special German interests." These interests were not defined, and we are left to surmise whether the special German interests alluded to were the interests attaching to friendship with England. But the KAISER'S further comments on the Boer | war will excite the greatest interes. During to black week of 1899, the KAISER said, "he replied sympathetically to a grief-stricken letter from QUEEN VICTORIA and ordered one of his officers to furnish an exact account of the numbers and positions of the opposing forces. He further caused a plan of campaign to be worked out, which was sub. mitted to the General Staff, and afterwards forwarded to England, it being remarked as a curious coincidence that the plan adopted by Lord ROBERTS was much on the same lines." While it must be confessed that this is very substantial proof of friend. ship to England, the suggestion that it was German Military intellegence and strategy that the British army owed its successful termination of the war will leave GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY negligence in building, it may be argued
to
tr
a sting that robs the unceasing friendship story of something of its sweetness. In the circumstances which prevailed when Lord ROBERT went out to South Africa it is not remarkable that his plan should have borne a resemblance to the one which
FOR BUILDINGS.
(Daily Press, 2nd November) Few cases have recently come before the Supreme Court which have excited more general interest and discussion than the case tried last week in which a Chinese who the KAISER states that he forward- supervised the erection of some dwelling ed to England. It was obvious to most houses at Shaukiwan five years ago was military
at the time that Lord arraigned on men
a charge of manslaughter ROBERTS could have followed no other with because these buildings partially collapsed the same assurance of success and though it in the typhoon of last July and caused the may have been a "curious coincidenca"
death of seventeen persons. What is chiefly that the operations conducted by Lord remarkable about the case is the declar. ROBERTS followed very closely the plan ation of the CHIKT JUSTICE in his charge to drawn up by the KAISER, it does not ne the Jury of the legal responsibility of the cessarily follow that the British military Government. His LORDSHIP laid it down authorities adopted that plan in pre- that if the Government chose to make ference to any plan of their own, or even Ordinances providing duties for its Depart that Lord KOBERTS' plan was inspired ments, and did not supply any Department
with proper offiourato duties then there was negligence part of the Government, and certain officials would be consequently liable, and it would be perfectly possible to bring home a ver- dict of manslaughter against any of them for neglecting to perform their duties. It may be recalled that at a recent Coroner' inquest, when the Jury added a rider to their verdict, censuring one of the officers of the Government, the Coroner refused to record it on the ground that the officer was away from the Colony, on leave, and had not been able to give evidence in his own defence. We do not know whether the Government recognises the serions responsibility which the ŎEINF JUSTICE says the Building Ordinance com- pels it to accept. What little the ATTOR- NEY-GENERAL had to say upon the point in the course of the case tried last week leaves us in some doubt as to whether the Government do fully accept the repon- sibility which the CHIEF JUSTICn says is theirs. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL merely submitted that, whatever may have been the deficiency or culpability of the officials of the Public Works Department, it did not exempt the defendant then in the dook. It was not said by the CHIEF JUSTICE that it did. HIS LORDSHIP's point was that both were liable. Now, among what the CHIEF JUSTICE described as the "popular fancies" (or was it "fallacies" the Judan said ?) curredt with regard to this matter of building inspection by the Government is one which regards the Government as no more responsible for the workmanship in a building than, say, is the public auditor for the accuracy of the books of a company whose annual balance sheet and statement of accounts he is called upon to audit. Just as the auditor certifies merely that the "statement of accounts is in accordance with the books" so the Government certifies that a building has been constructed in accordance with the plan which it had approved before the building operations commenced. The Gu vernment lusists, for instance, on provisions with regard to light and air, height of buildings and other things, all of which may be shown upon the plans, and must be shown upon the plans before they are approved by the Building Authority, and we have heard it argued that a certificate by the Building Authority may be taken to mean simply, that a building had been erected in accordance with the plans submitted by the builders or the architect and officially approved. If the dictum of the CHIEF JUSTICE is sound, that because the Government has enacted an ordinance which imposes on its officers the duty of seeing that building work is properly done, therefore
jointly with the builders for results due to
that it follows that the Government must 'be held jointly liable with the actual perpetrators of almost any crime or offence against the statutes of the Colony. There is a law, for instance, against theft, and the Government maintains a large police force to see, as far as possible, that every person strictly observes the law, but robberies are committed every day. heard it suggested, however, that the Captain-Superintendent of Police is liable as well as the actual thief to be imprisoned for the crime. We do not presume to say the JUDGE's dictum is wrong. It strikes us only as novel, and it must, we fancy, hare come to the Government as a revelation.. If the responsibility of the Public Works Department is such as the Juden mycit in: it is clearly necessary for the Government r
it is
liable
We have never
J.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.