pone the final stages of the bill until Mr. Fletcher's return, if your dents The proposal to postpone the final stages of the bill is made because because it might be of convenience to the Government, or to your clients, or to the public, that the bill should be introduced and read a first time, or- taken to the second reading, or even to the committee stage.
Yours faithfully, (Sd.) G. H. Wakeman, Crown Solicitor>
I can find no furth-r corres. 11 dence from the Hongkong Government beyond the above, but it was quite sufficient to. permit me to consider that 1:—The Colony desired under all circumstances to hold us down to our mutual agreement of August, 1920, even, though the outlook had entirely altered since then.
2,—It would not permit us to carry on with our legal proceedings when we knew the "Indemnity Ordinance" was in the air.
3.—It would not permit us to alter our position when <he "Indemnity "Ordinance" became a@ question of serious approaching moment.
4.—It suggested that we should receive _considerat¢, reasonable and justifiable treatment at their hands when the ripe time arrived. 2, 1921, the all imion of the Singapore Supreme Court, against the Crown was delivered and became known. 1 have referred to this already.
In September 1921, the first reading of the Indemnity Bill took place.
On (May 26, 1922, we received the following letter from our Solicitors Hongkong, May 26, 1922.
Dear Sirs.:—I yesterday had an interview with Mr. Fletcher who informed me that he was now going into the file on this matter. That on the 8th proximo Mr. Cloud Severn would return to the Colony and on that date he, Mr. Fletcher, would be relinquishing his present office, whereupon he would give the whole of his time to this matter, and would let us have a definite decision by the 15th proximo, furthermore that in the event of an arrangement. not. being come to, we woud be given permission to continue our action, that is to say, under no circumstances would the Government force the Ordinance on us until after either an arrange. ment has been come to or a decision obtained in the case.
T regard the above as a very satis. factory arrangement.
Yours faithfully.
(Sd.) W. E. L. Snenron.
On August 9, 1922, we received the following letter from our Solicitors (ex parte):
Hongkong, August 9, 1922.
Dear Moller:—I am in receipt of your letter of 3rd instant.
There is no doubt that Fletcher had to_go back on his statement.
Ido not think that anybody was more surprised than the Government when the Legislative Council refused to adopt their proposition thereby placing the Government in a very awkward position as regards the shipowners.
Yours sincerely, W. E. L. Suenron. "In August 1922, the final reading of the Indemnity Bill took On July 25, 1923, we werd rendered entirely "hors de combat" by the Hongkong Chie? Justice, Sir William Rees Davis, quite rightly dismissing a long pending action under the Ordinance which had now become law.
The proceedings were started; they were stayed and later an Ordinance was passed that made it impossible for them to succeed. That Ordinance was based on the Home Act. At the final hearing off the case before the Chief Justice of Hongkong on July 25, (Mr. O. G. Alabaster, K.c., who 1epresented the shipowners, said, inter+ alia, when speaking of the Ordinance.
"Your Lordship will see by comparing Section 3 of local Ordinance with section 1 of the Home Act that not only does the Ordinance like the Act protect Government servants from torts they have committed—and thera Were no such actions pending or likely lo be pending when this Ordinance was passed but it also has the addition of these words which are not on the Home Act:—"Or for the recovering of any sum of money which was acquired by Government of the colony of Hongkong in consequence of any such act, matter or thing." These words do not appear in the Home Act. They are added to destroy these actions, which, as I have said, are actions for money had and received to the plaintifis use. Your Lordship sees that the Ordinance follows the Act very closely, almost word for word, until it comes to that point, and they added that in order to get rid of these ten actions.
In giving judgment for the Crown to the effect that the actions be discharged, the Chief Justice said in regard to the Indemnity Ordinance "As to the merits of that Ordinance or as to the causes which caused it to be passed, this Court is not conce ned under the present application. The only question this Court has to deal with is, does the Orainance, the effect of which is.the law of the Colony, practically terminate these proceedings Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, acting under his instructions, has made some general observations beating on the acts of the Government in this case. Regarding these observations I am not called upon in any way to deal or express my opinion. My duty is to administer the law. Learned counsel for the plaintifis does not suggest it is possible on his part to resist the effect of the Indemnity Ordinance. He says that he is instructed not. to consent, but that he could not contest it by virtue of force majeure."
Nevertheless, there was one outstanding redeeming feature through the long period of anxiety, ani that was the frank sincere loyalty of effort that Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher displayed and put forward in his continued attempts to see that the destitute shipowners,' should get a "fair deal'; it went so far as to bring this long outstanding discussion almost to the point of an amicable settlement upon a basis of 50 per cent. and 50 per cent. division of the funds accrued.
This very right suggestion was thrown out by the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, for reasons best known to themselves.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.