Sir Nicholas Hannen on the Sth inst. sent the following protest to Ts'ai Taotai have to protest nat only inst the decision of the court but also wgninst the method of the enquiry.
At an early stage of the case, at the instigation of the defendant's counsel, the court ordered that no private discussion should take place between the jude and myself This decision was arrived at without discussion and without hearing the plaintiffs counsel upon the point. It would have been unseemly on my part to argue the question then when the decision of the question had already been announced by the judge.
Such a decision is against all precedent, either in China or anywhere else. Cases where a Chinese judge holds a court at which a foreign Consular official a-sists, are of daily occurrences. In such cases the Chinese magistrate and the foreign assessor invariably consult together in private. Upon appeal from the Mixed Court the Tnotai has more than once sat with a Consular official of suitable rank. On these occasions the Taotai and the Consular official have consulted in private. In all the treaty ports the same thing has occurred. Courts consisting of a judge and assessors are common. In all before them the judge and assessor consult in private. The decision of this Court that no consultation should take [arg was therefore contrary to all recedent and contrary to the spirit of the letter of the Tuotai by which I was invited by direction of the Viceroy of Nanking, to investigate the case jointly with Me. Ts'ni and endeavour to arrive at a just and amicable arrangement. I therefore protest against It is necessary that I should do so lest it should be drawn into precedent, although this should be impossible as the Court was special and exceptional one.
T feet also bound to protest aguinst the Length to which the proceedings were allowed to be drawn out. 'This was owing to the method in which the enquiry was conducted, it was neither Chinese nor foreign, but, as it seemed to me, controlled entirely by the defendants' counsel whose suggestions on important or unimportant points were adopted in every instance, sometimes without hearing the plaintiffs! counsel's objections. Had it been conducted according to the method followed in English and other foreign Cuurts, a mass of evidence' which was admitted would have been excluded. There were many ways in which the enquiry might have been shortened. Had I been at liberty to consult in private with the judge upon points upon which we were agreed, an accumulation of evidence would have been unnecessary. Decisions upon main questions might have been arrived at, which would have rendered the production of much of the evidence useless.
T feel bound also to protest against the useless expenses to which the plaintiffs were put by insisting on a ful] translation of all their vouchers being made. This was done upon the declaration of the defendants' counsel that he intended to cross-examine upon the detailed items. This he never did. It is true he argued upon them, but this argument could just as well have been founded upon their nature as upon their detailed items. For instance, many billy were for things necessary to the ships as passenger steamers. Whether they were properly chargeable tothe defendants is a question. 'The defendants' counsel said they were not, and it was waste of time to go into the numbers of cups and sonicers charged for dants. Moreover, the defendants did not say that t-o many had been bought or that any had been charged for which had not been supplied. These travislations were not necessary, and, having been made at the instance of the defendants should be paid for by them in any event.
Another point relating to the matter of the enquiry to which I feel bound to enter my protest is that the plaintiffs were compelled to sum up their case before the defendants had summed up theirs. This was neither according to foreign methods, nor was it in accordance with Chinese practice, which does not recognise summing up at all on either side. This course of procedure was defended by.the defendants' counsel on the ground that it was unfair that the plaintiffs should have both the first and last word. It has been left for the defendants' counsel in this case to discover an unfairness in the procedure of every civilised country in the world, and as it is the universal practice, I think it may be concluded with some certainty that it is not unfair. But whether it is fair or unfair, ib is the only reasonable course from the nature of the case. The defendants' counsel in his opening, left many of the points of his case to be argued in his summing-up; no one complains of this. It is inevitable; but the plaintiff's counsel must have an opportunity answering, and this by the 1 re adopted by the Court, he never will have. procedure in this particular again cannot But as this was an exceptional Court, its
adduced as a precedent.
There is another point, somewhat personal, to which I feel bound to allude.
uring the course "f the case, the defendants' counsel made remarks and addressed me ina manner which everybody acquainted with the ordinary rules of courtesy in courts must have felt to be unseemly; and this was done without one word of remonstrance from the presiding judge. Had such remarks been made to " Chinese
I should have insisted on an apology and on the bench with me, shoul have known how to enforce it.
T desire to add that so far as Mr, Tx'ai himself is concerned I have experienced the greatest courtesy and consideration. I make every allowance for the position in which he was placed, in conductiay an important case in a novel and unfamiliar manner, and I quite see that his position was a very difficult one.
It was an unfortunate decision which was arrived at that no discussions in private should take place between Mr. Ts'ai and myself; but for it, much which I have been obliged to say would have been unnecessary and the divergence of our views upon the case itself might well have been less pronounced. Had we consulted in private as the case went on he would have been able to give me information of the light in which he looked at the Chinese evidence which, coming from him, might have induced me to consider it in a different manner on the other hand, I might have given him information from my experience of foreign witnesses, which might have of use to him in judging of their credibility. As it is our minds have probably travelled along perfectly distinct planes of thought and it is not to be wondered at that 0 "joint" enquiry, carried out in such a manner has resulted in a decision which I am unable to say is a just one and, I fear, cannot be called an amicable arrangement.
I now come to the judgment arrived at by Mr. Ts'ai, a copy of which was handed to the Acting Consul-General for Great Britain on the 11th September. As I do not imagine that it is possible, by any arguments which I may use, to' convince Mr. Ts'ai that he is wrong and the judgment having been delivered, it would be useless even if I did so, I do not propose to enter into any lengthened statement of the reasons for my protest. It will
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.