Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Mack v. Municipal Council, 1885

[wrongful dismissal]


Mack v. Municipal Council

Court of Treaty Consuls, Shanghai
1 September 1995
Source: North China Herald, 5 September 1885
 

IN THE COURT OF TREATY CONSULS
Shanghai, 1st Sept. 1995.
Before Dr. Luhrsen, H.I.G.M.'s Consul-General and Senior Consul (President); C. Alabaster, Esq., H.B.M.'s Acting Consul-General; and G. H. Scidmore, Esq., U.S. Vice-Consul-General in charge.
ARTHUR MACK v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
  This was a claim for $5,000 for wrongful dismissal.
  Mr. Drummond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Robinson for the defendants.
  The petition of the said Arthur Mack shows as follows:-
- The plaintiff is a British subject.
- The defendants are the Council for the Foreign Community of Shanghai.
- By an agreement dated the 1st November, 1883, and expressed to be made between the council for the Foreign Community of Shanghai in the Empire of China elected by the Ratepayers of Shanghai in pursuance of the powers vested in them by the land regulations for the Foreign Settlements of Shanghai, North of Yang-king-pang, of the one part; and Arthur Mack, of the other part, the said Council agreed to employ the plaintiff as detective inspector of the Police Force of Shanghai, and the plaintiff agreed to serve the said Council as detective inspector aforesaid from the said 1st November, 1883, and under and subject to the terms and conditions in the said agreement set forth.
- The plaintiff files with this petition a copy of the said agreement and claims leave to refer to the same at the hearing of this suit.
- The plaintiff served the defendants as detective inspector until the dismissal hereafter mentioned, and was always ready and willing to continue such service during the remainder of the said term of five years. At the time of the said dismissal the plaintiff's salary was $115 a month.
- The plaintiff., acting on good faith and in the due discharge of his duties, did on the 8th June last send to the Captain Superintendent of the Shanghai Police Force a letter accusing Chief Inspector Cameron of the said Force of having embezzled between the 4th of February, 1885, and the 1st of June, 1885, the sum of $14.20 and causing the pay sheets of the said Force to be falsified.
- On the 18th of June last the plaintiff attended as directed at the Board room of the defendants, but was not allowed by the members of the council, who were then present, an opportunity of proving the charges in the 6th paragraph of this petition mentioned, and although the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to prove the said charges he has never yet been allowed an opportunity of so doing, and the plaintiff further alleges that the said charges have never yet been  investigated by the defendants.
- On the 24th June last, the plaintiff received from the defendants' Secretary a letter in the following terms:-
Municipal Council, 23, Kiangse Road, Shanghai.
24th June, 1885.
  SIR, - I am directed to inform you that the Watch Committee, after carefully investigating the charge brought by you against Chief Inspector Cameron of having embezzled the sum of $14.20 and of having caused the Police Sheets to be falsified, came to the conclusion that the charges were quite unfounded and ought not to have been made.
  The decision was communicated to the Council at their meeting on Monday last, when the members, after consultation with the Captain Superintendent, were unanimously of opinion that you should be dismissed from the Police Force, as if you were allowed to remain after having made such groundless charges against your superior officer, it would be quite impossible to maintain proper discipline in it.
  The Captain Superintendent has also reported that your manner to him on the night of the 16th inst. was exceedingly disrespectful, but in order that you may have every opportunity of forwarding in writing to this Council any statement in justification of your conduct, they have decided that you are to remain suspend from duty until the end of the month, after which you will be dismissed from the Police Force, should they not before then have received some satisfactory explanation of your conduct.
I am, Sir, &c.
- On the 30th of June last he defendant caused to be published in the North China Daily News of that date certain minutes of the meeting held by the defendants on the 22nd of June, and which said minutes included a paragraph in the following terms:-
Case of Detective Inspector Mack -
That Chairman of the Watch Committee states that in accordance with the instructions of the Council the charges made by Detective Inspector Mack against Chief Inspector Cameron of having embezzled $14.20 and of having caused the Police pay sheets to be falsified, were fully investigated by the Watch Committee on Thursday afternoon, when the Chairman of the Council was also present, and they had come to the conclusion that the charges were unfounded and malicious. As Capt. McEuen had also stated that Inspector Mack's manner to himself was exceedingly disrespectful, the Chairman decided to recommend the Council to dismiss him from the Police Force.  The Council unanimously agree with the recommendation of the Watch Committee, but decided to postpone further action until after another meeting.
- On the 3rd day of the present month of July the plaintiff received a letter from the said Secretary in the following terms:-
Municipal Council, 23 Kiangsu Road, Shanghai; 2nd July 1885.
  SIR, - Referring to the letter which I addressed to you on the 24th ult., I am now directed to inform you that for the reasons given in that letter you were, by order of the council, dismissed from the Police Force on the 30th ult.
I am, Sir, &c.
- The plaintiff denies that the said charges were groundless, or were maliciously made, and also denies that he has ever behaved in a disrespectful manner towards the said Captain Superintendent of the said Force, and alleges that he has been wrongfully dismissed by the defendants.
- By reason of the premises the plaintiff has suffered and will suffer very grievously in character and reputation, and will lose the wages and advantages that he would have derived from the said service, and the plaintiff claims five thousand dollars.
-   -
The answer of the said defendants to the petition of the plaintiff shews as follows:-
- In answer of the first paragraph of the said petition, the defendants say that they nether admit or deny that the plaintiff is a British subject.
- In answer to the second, third, eighth, ninth and tenth paragraphs of the said petition, the defendants admit the statements in those paragraphs contained; but as to the third paragraph of the said petition, they deny that the plaintiff has abided by, performed, discharged and observed the rules and regulations referred to in the said third paragraph of the petition.
- In answer to the fourth paragraph of the said petition the defendants leave the plaintiff the proof of the agreement in the said paragraph mentioned.
- In answer to the fifth paragraph of the said petition the defendants admit that the salary of the plaintiff was Mexican dollars one hundred and fifteen per month.  Save as aforesaid the defendants deny the allegations in the said paragraph mentioned.
- In answer to the sixth paragraph of the said petition the defendants say that in making the charges against Chief Inspector Cameron as set forth in the said sixth paragraph, the plaintiff did not, in the judgment of the defendants, act in good faith, either as regards the defendants or Chief Inspector Cameron,  And the defendants further say that the letter of the 16th day of July, 1885, referred to in the said sixth paragraph, was written by the plaintiff to the Captain Superintendent of the Police Force in answer to the following memo or order of the said Captain Superintendent, addressed to the plaintiff on that day:-
MEMO.
June the 1th, 1885.
Inspector Mack, I am informed, has made some charges of irregularity against his superior officer to certain members of the council.
  Inspector Mack will, therefore, with as little delay as possible, furnish me his reasons in writing for the impropriety in his conduct.
  He will also inform me in writing the nature of the charge or charges he has preferred to the Council.
(Signed) J. P. McEuen, Capt. Supt, of Police.
  And the defendants further say that on the 8th day of June, 1885, the said plaintiff, acting in contravention of the Shanghai Police regulations, personally told the Secretary of the council the particulars of the charges which he wished to make against Chief Inspector Cameron.  These charges were the same as those contained in the plaintiff's said letter of the 16th of June, 885, addressed to the Captain Superintendent of Police, and referred to in the 6th paragraph of the petition, and the said Secretary told the plaintiff that he ought to make the said charges to the Captain Superintendent, which the plaintiff declined to do.  The defendants further say that the plaintiff, on the 8th day of June, 1885, also made the same charges as those mentioned by him to the Secretary of the Council against Chief Inspector Cameron to the Caiman of the council and to the Chairman of the Watch Committee, and on o about the 15th June, 185, the latter brought the matter before the Council at the ordinary meeting, when it was decided to investigate the matter in a regular way, and the Secretary as directed to communicate with the Captain Superintendent for that purpose.  Accordingly the Secretary on the 16th day of June, 1885, wrote to the Captain Superintendent a letter, of which the following is a copy.
June 16th, 1885.
  SIR, - The Council have been informed that Detective Inspector Mack had made certain charges against his superior officer.
  I am directed by the council to request that you will call upon Inspector Mack to an explanation of this impropriety in his conduct, and at the same time within your discretion enquire what the charges are.
I am, etc., R. F. Thorburn, Secretary.
6, -In answer to the 7th paragraph of the said petition the defendants say that on the 16th day of June, 1885, the plaintiff and Chief Inspector Cameron attended before a meeting of the Watch Committee, at which the Chairman of the Council was likewise present, and the plaintiff was then asked to state his ground for charging Chief Inspector Cameron with embezzlement.  The plaintiff then made a statement of his reasons, and said he had Sergeant Millne and two native policemen waiting and ready to give evidence in corroboration of his statements.  The Committee having previously heard the explanation of the Captain Superintendent and been informed by him that the coolie concerning whom Inspector Mack had given evidence, had been taken on by his (Captain Superintendent's) orders, and after hearing explanations from Chief Inspector Cameron, came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the charges against the latter.  Save as aforesaid the defendants deny all the allegations in the said seventh paragraph of the petition.
7.-In answer to the 11th paragraph of the said petition the defendants say they do not admit the allegations in the said paragraph contained, and leave the plaintiff to the proof of the same.  And by way of further defence the defendants say:-
8. - The meeting of the defendants held on the 22nd day of June, 1885, referred to in the 9th paragraph of the said petition, was an ordinary general meeting of the Municipal Council. Such meetings are held once a week, and such portions of the proceedings thereat as the council consider useful to be published for the information of the public are as a matter of course directed by them to be published accordingly in the Public English Journals at Shanghai.  The minutes of the proceedings at the said meeting of 22nd June, 1885, referred to in the 9th paragraph of the said petition, including that portion headed "Case of Detective Inspector Mack," were published in the usual way by order of the defendants in their Capacity of Municipal Council, bona fide, and without malice, and for the public benefit, and not otherwise, and the said paragraph relating to the plaintiff was and is a correct, fair, impartial and honest report and account of proceedings of public interest and concern.
9. - The defendants deny each and every the allegations contained in the 12th paragraph of the plaintiff's petition.
  Mr. Drummond - May it please your Honours, there is one matter to which I should like to refer to very briefly before referring to the case itself.  I am sorry to have to do s; but it seems to me a necessity.  It is this: I observed last night in a newspaper an article referring to this case.  I do not know whether that article has been seen by this court; but I think it is only right to say that the plaintiff disclaims having had anything to do with the appearance of that article, in fact he has never seen it. I think it is a wholesome rule that no public comment should be made on any case while that case is pending, and I think it is specially desirable in a small community like this.  I am quite sure this Court will not allow that article to have the slightest weight with them, either on one side or the other.
  Mr. Drummond then asked that all the witnesses in the case might be ordered out of Court, and this was done.
  Upon the application of Mr. Drummond, the plaintiff's petition was amended by the addition of the words "and the cost of his suit from the defendants" at the end of clause 12; and on the application of Mr. Robinson the answer was amended by the insertion of the words "mentioned in the agreement" after the word "regulations" in clause 2.  The concluding lines of this clause then read as follows, "they deny that the plaintiff has abided by, performed, discharged or observed the rules and regulations mentioned in the agreement referred to in the said third paragraph of the petition."
  Mr. Drummond, in opening the case for the plaintiff, entered into a long and exhaustive criticism of the pleadings, saying in concluding this part of his speech that he questions to be decided resolved themselves into these - Did the plaintiff make a groundless and malicious charge against Chief Inspector Cameron, and was he disrespectful to Captain McEuen? With regard to the plaintiff himself, there were a few points to which he desired to draw the attention of the Court, to show the position he had occupied.  He did not refer to these facts at the plaintiff's suggestion, but they were facts which he thought should, and he hoped would, influence the Court in weighing he case.  The plaintiff had been in the force for over five years.  During the whole of that period he had never been punished once. He commenced upon a salary of Tls. 30 per month, and his salary had been raised to $115 per month, the pay he was receiving at the time of his dismissal.  At the time of his dismissal his pay was only, under the agreement, $75, but he was receiving $115 per month, which was a strong practical illustration of the regard and the estimation in which his own employers held him as an officer of the Force.  In addition to that the plaintiff had a record which was possibly better than any other officer's in the Force.  At any rate, without going into a comparison, the plaintiff had been publicly commended and rewarded no less than ten times during his period of service; and he had been permanently injured for life while in the actual performance of his duties.  Of the period of over five years that he had been in the Force, four years and a half were spent under Mt. Penfold, the previous Superintendent of the force, and one year and a quarter under Captain Superintendent McEuen.  As Detective Inspector, the plaintiff was placed in no class, and for a great part of that time there was no other detective officer in the force at all.  He received practically no instructions whatever as to the conduct of his work from either Mr. Penfold or Capt. McEuen; and therefore he must have been so capable in their opinion to perform his duties thoroughly, efficiently and zealously that they left him  entirely to use his own discretion in the important duties entrusted to him.
  Then came the contention by the defendants that the plaintiff broke the rules and regulations of the Shanghai Police Force.  In carrying out his duties as detective inspector, he did so, as had been already explained, according to his own discretion, and hat met with the satisfaction of his superiors. He paid for the information he obtained from time to time out of his own pocket, to a very considerable extent, and he was enabled to do so by the rewards he received for arresting deserters from shoos.  That was a practice that was not very common to members of police or any other force; but it was a fact in his case.  With regard to the regulations themselves, they had never been directed to his attention either by Mr. Penfold or Capt. McEuen, in the sense that he was directed to examine and obey them.  The Regulations had been, so far as he plaintiff was concerned, and, Mr. Drummond thought the Court would see, as nearly as possible, so far as the whole Force was concerned, a dead letter from beginning to end.  The plaintiff was accused of having brought groundless charges against his superior officer.  His answer to that would be that he knew of nothing which exempted a superior officer of the Police or any other Force from an examination into his conduct.  If facts came to the plaintiff's knowledge arousing a suspicion that a member of the Force, be it the highest or the lowest, had committed a breach of the law of right and wrong, it was his duty as a detective officer to follow up the clue and work it out.  If it turned out to be nothing, as might often be the case, it would be left alone; if it turned out to be something, he would follow it to the end.  It was his duty, if he saw occasion, to being a charge against any officer of the Force, however superior to himself that officer might be.  Yet that was just what the plaintiff was accused of, as if it were a crime.  In addition to that, Mr. Drummond thought he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court, that the plaintiff had been absolutely  employed on previous occasions, and ordered and directed, by members of the Municipal Council, his proper employers, to make enquiries about the conduct of his officers, including the Superintendent for the time being, and to report, not to the Superintendent, but to the Chairman and another member, especially named, of the Watch Committee of the Council. The plaintiff had been actually told to do that within the last two or three years, and he had reported in that way; therefore if he had been ordered to do so once by his employers it was difficult to see how he could be blamed for doing a similar thing a short time afterwards.  The plaintiff's employers were distinctly the Municipal Council, the defendants to this suit.
  The Court would observe by Clause 3 of the plaintiff's agreement that his duties were not limited to reporting to the Captain Superintendent; a great many other persons were mentioned.  It was there laid down that he was to obey all the order of his Superintendent or any one of his superior officers, or any member of the Municipal Council, in respect of his duties as a detective inspector.  There was nothing laying it down as incumbent upon him that he was never to speak or whisper anything with regard to a charge against anyone except to the Captain Superintendent; and that was the real charge which the Captain Superintendent brought against him.
  Then he was charged with having maliciously made this charge.  It would be a serious thing for the defendants to make such a statement in a private letter to the plaintiff himself, which would not necessarily go any further.  Even in a private letter it was a very gross charge to make if it was untrue; but it became much more serious when it was published in a newspaper and was free to all the world. To state that he acted maliciously was one of the gravest and most serious things that could be said against any one in the Force, and whether the plaintiff acted maliciously in this case or not, it was a mater upon which he would have to give his evidence, and the Court would judge for itself.  The plaintiff would tell the Court that he had not the slightest malice against Inspector Cameron from the very first to the last.  The evidence which he should place before them would also show another point to which he should like to draw attention, and that was the great desire to keep back everything which might in any way reflect discredit upon the Force in general, or upon its management, as it was at present, from the public knowledge; and whether that was right or wrong, he submitted that in this case it had been carried to a undue extent, and had been one of the means whereby the plaintiff had suffered great injustice.
  Mr. Drummond next entered into the facts of the employment of a colie, out of which the plaintiff's charge against Inspector Cameron arose, saying that the circumstances all came to the plaintiff's knowledge in the ordinary course of his duties, and that he in no way went out of his way from first to last to seek for any case or to make any charge against Inspector Cameron.  Evidence would be given with regard to this, which he thought would convince the Court that from the facts which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff he was amply justified in taking the steps that he did.  The plaintiff had been dismissed for what in effect was no offence at all;; or if any offence could be found in it at all after an examination of the evidence, it would be found to be so trivial as to be amply met by two or three words of the lightest character of reprimand; but he for one could not see where there was room for even reprimand of any kind.  The plaintiff had no doubt offended the susceptibilities of Capt. McEuen; but Mr. Drummond thought it would be found in the course of the case that Capt. McEuen's sense of dignity in his position was so great that it was very difficult for any member of the Force to carry out his duties without more or less frequently treading on his toes.  They all know the old saying -
"That in the Captain's but a choleric word,
Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy."
And he thought the meaning that these words conveyed was very applicable to the present case.  For no offence at all, or for a trifling one, the plaintiff had been dismissed from his office and injured by this public statement in the newspapers, which went forth to the world and would be calculated to destroy his prospects of obtaining a livelihood in a similar capacity elsewhere.  It was impossible to imagine anything which could do him more harm than that public statement.
  The plaintiff's agreement had still forty months to run; he was receiving at the time of his dismissal $115 per month, which would amount to $4,600.  He was entitled in addition to free quarters, fuel, light, and medical attendance, and to a second-class passage to England or elsewhere at the termination of his agreement.  Therefore without allowing anything as compensation for the injury done to his character, $5,000 was a very low estimate of the damage he had sustained.  With regard to that point, he thought if the Court found that the plaintiff had been wrongfully dismissed, and gave him his salary to the end of the time, he would be content to accept this as such complete justification of his action as to get rid of any injury which might be done him by the publication of that statement in the council's minutes.  If, however, the Court should hold that although he was receiving $115 he was only entitled to recover the amount of his salary under the agreement - $75 a month, this would leave $2,000 as against unmarried quarters, light, fuel, medical attendance, &c., for the forty months, and against the injury to his character, and Mr. Drummond submitted that if he succeeded in proving that the plaintiff had been wrongfully dismissed, the claim was an exceedingly moderate one in every way.
  Arthur Mack, the plaintiff, was then called and examined by Mr. Drummond. He said he was thirty-two years of age, and of British nationality.
  Mr. Drummond - When did you arrive here?
  Witness - In the early part of 1879.
  When were you first employed by the Municipal Council? - On the 3rd September, 1879.
  In what capacity? - As constable.
  Have you continued in that employment ever since? - Until the day of my dismissal.
  What was the pay you received at first? - Thirty taels.
  Was the employment under a written agreement or a verbal one? - A verbal one.
  You say your salary commenced at thirty taels a month.  Up to what did it finally go? -After a few month, I received Tls. 45; and on promotion to Sergeant, Tls. 60 for one year, and afterwards an increase of Tls. 5. On promotion to Inspector I received $75 under my agreement.
  And after that? - I received an increase of salary up to $100 and commuted my pension, which made a sum of $15 more, $115 a month.
  Was that the sum you were receiving at the time of your dismissal? - Yes.
  Have you ever had a complaint made against you during the time you have been in the Force, up to the time of Mr. Cameron making a complaint? - No, I have never had a complaint of any kind, not by anyone.
  You have been altogether in the service, how long? - About 5 years and 9 months.
  Have you ever been punished by the Head of the Police force either the last or the present one? - Never.
  Or by the Municipal Council, your employers? - No.
  Have you been rewarded in any way during your service? - I have been rewarded quite a number of times.
  Just state each one shortly. - I was publicly rewarded by Mr. Mowat in the British Court on behalf of Mr. Robertson, the Consul at Yokohama; I think it was in 1881.  I have been rewarded on three occasions at the Mixed Court by the Magistrate and Assessor, one reward of $40, and three rewards of $50.  I was publicly thanked in 1882 by the Austrian Consul in a letter to the Municipal Council, which was published in the annual report of the council at year.  I was also publicly thanked on behalf of the king of Italy by the Acting Consul.  I was again rewarded by the Great Northern and Eastern Extension Telegraph Companies with the sum of $50, and by Jardine's with $50; and three weeks before my dismissal by the Municipal Council in the sum of $25.  I was recommended by the Chinese authorities in the early part of 1883, in addition to the instances I have named.
  Have you ever been injured during your service in the force? - Yes, I have been ruptured.
  Was that while doing the work of a policeman? - It was while arresting a prisoner.
  A foreign prisoner? - Yes.
  Is it a permanent injury from which you will always suffer? - It is a permanent injury.
  You say you were employed verbally originally.  - Yes.
  Afterwards you received a written agreement? - Yes, on the 1st November, 1885.
  Is this a copy of the agreement? - It is.
  Who was Superintendent of the Police Force when you entered into it? - Mr. Penfold.
  And when did he give up charge? - I think it was about April last year.
  Hen Capt. McEuen took charge? - Yes.
  That makes about four and a half years under Mr. Penfold and one year and a quarter under Captain McEuen? = Yes.
  When Mr. Penfold left, what position did you occupy? - Detective Inspector.
  At what pay? - $75 per month.
  What class were you in in the Force? - I was in no class.
  Did you ever inquire what class you were in? - Yes, I inquired of Captain Superintendent McEuen.  He told me I was not a classed Inspector, and issued a memo, to that effect; and put an order in the book.
  Did he give any reasons, or say anything why you were not in a class? -I do not know how he mentioned it, but he said something to the effect that being the detective and knowing my duty.  I was not in a class.  He left me to my own discretion in performing my duties.
  Were there any other detective officers in the Force at that time? - Yes, there was one detective constable.
  A European? - Yes.
   During a part of the time, were you the only detective officer in the Force? - Yes.
  On a different footing to any other officer in the Force? - Yes.
  Did you ever receive any special instructions as to how you were to perform your duties or carry them out as detective inspector? - No. I was told to do my duties to the best of my abilities.  Mr. Penfold never gave me any instructions because he knew it was useless.  I had to use my discretion and act according to circumstances.
  Did Capt. McEuen ever give you any special instructions? - Never.
  How were you to perform your duties under Capt. McEuen? - The same as I had done under Mr. Penfold.
  Were you aver told to report all the cases that came to your knowledge to the Capt. Superintendent of Police or to anyone specially? - No, Sir.
  Not by either of the chiefs you served under? - No, never.
  As a matter of fact what was your common practice in reporting cases? - If a case came to my knowledge - if I suspected something was wrong, I would work  upon the case until I got sufficient evidence to take it into Court; and afterwards if I met the Superintendent I would say yesterday or the day before or whatever the day might be, I arrested a man for a  certain thing.  In important cases like the attack on "The Point," the Captain Superintendent would frequently ask me if I had got any information and I would tell him.  In small cases I would arrest dozens of men and take them to Court and never say a word about it.
  And that was your practice during the whole time of your service? - Yes.
  Was that well known to Mr. Penfold? - Yes.
  And was it as far as you knew, satisfactory to him? - Perfectly satisfactory to him.
  Did you ever receive a book of rules and regulations? - Yes, Sir.
  Have there been more than one of these books since you have been in the Force? - Yes. There have been three.
  Are these them? - Yes.
   Just look at the present regulations under the "Detective Officers," page 41: Are the regulations there the same as in the old ones? - Exactly the same, with the exception that Captain Superintendent is put in instead of Superintendent.
  Just look at Clause 2 of those "Detective Regulations."
  Plaintiff read the clause, which was to the effect that the detective should receive his orders and instructions from, and make his reports to the Captain Superintendent.
  Mr. Drummond - Was your attention ever drawn to that regulation?
  Witness - Never.
  Never during the whole time you were in the Force? - Never.
  Has that rule ever been carried out from the time you entered the service until you left? - No.
  Could it have been carried out? - No, it would have been impossible.
  Could you have done the work? - No.
  Just state why? - It would have taken me all my time to hang about the police station to see the Captain Superintendent; and it would be no use when I did see him.  The Captain Superintendent has never given me any guidance as to how I should do my work; and I think he will admit himself that he does not know anything about detective work; he could only have told me to act on my discretion.
  It would have taken you all your time, and when you had reported, he could not have given you any directions which could alter your conduct of the case? - Yes.
  Do you recollect any special difference between the set of Regulations now in force and the old regulations? Is anything omitted? = Yes.
  The principal part is omitted from these.  In all rules and regulations of the police force the duties of the Captain Superintendent and Chief Inspector are always defined, but here there is nothing about them. They have not been put in.
  You consider them the most important part? - Yes.
  You have been in the detective branch nearly the whole time you have been in the Force? - Nearly the whole time.
  Is there any book in which cases are entered when they are first commenced? - Yes.  They are entered in the "Occurrence Book."
  Where is that kept? - In the Police Office at each station.
  And what is entered in it? - The occurrences that happen during the twenty four hours.
  By whom? - By the Inspector on duty.
  To whom does it go in the ordinary course? - It is never taken out of the office.
Does it ever come to the knowledge of the superior officers and Captain Superintendent? - Not unless he goes in and looks at it; and I do not remember any case where he has gone to look at it.
  If that book was looked at it would give an intimation of the work upon which you were engaged? - Yes.
  Was Mr. Penfold, so far as you recollect, in the habit of going into the Police office and looking into this book? - Yes, nearly every morning.  He would go in, look at the book, and get information as to the work done during the day and ask the Sergeant what had come in.
  Is there any other paper kept in addition to the book? - There is what is known as the "Morning State" sent in.
  Who sends it in? - It is sent in from the different stations.  It gives the Superintendent an idea of what is done, and a copy is made by the clerk and sent in to the Council.
  Dos that give the same information of what is going on as the "Occurrence Nook?" - No, r, it does not.  It merely gives a summary of what has been stolen, and if there has been a man arrested for burglary, it will simply say, "one burglar." Bu as to who arrested him, or worked up the case, nothing whatever is said.
  Then most of the material in the "Occurrence Bok" is not put in the "Morning State?" - No.
  Was the "Morning State" sent in also in Mr. Penfold's time? - Yes. Sir.
  Now will you tell the Court what method you used in obtaining information? - When I first took over the detective duties here I was very fortunate in arresting deserters from men-of-war and receiving rewards for them, and I devoted part of that money to get information of crimes committed by the Chinese.  Lately since the Captain Superintendent has been here he has granted me money for this purpose, but there is certain information that I could not charge for, information that turns out to be of no good.  Money that I have received in rewards and for arresting deserters I have devoted to obtaining information from the Chinese and in this way it has been spent for the benefit of the community.
  You spent it in getting information about crimes? - Yes.
  Can you give me an idea of the rewards you received for deserters? - Sometimes $10, sometimes $20, and sometimes I only got $5.
  The rewards averaged from $5 to $20? - Yes.
  Altogether that would amount to a considerable sum? - Yes.
  And you spent a large portion of it on the Chinese who gave you information as to what was going on? - Yes.
  Did you pay any men regularly? - Yes.  There were two I paid regularly $3 and $4 per month, and if they got a case in which I got a reward I gave them the best part of the reward.
  Did you find it necessary to adopt tactics of that sort to get information from the Chinese? - I could not do it without.
  Now I understand you to say that having got the information by methods such as these, were you in the habit of taking the case to Court, completing it, and getting a conviction or otherwise as the case might be, without ever communicating with Mr. Penfold at all? - Yes.
  And the same with Capt. McEuen? - Yes.
  And so far as you know there has been no objection to that course? - No, with the exception of the big cases as I have already mentioned.
  In any instance can you remember either of the Heads of the Police Force having expressed knowledge of the fact that you were working entirely independently? - Capt. McEuen said to me on one occasion - ""I do not know what we are talking about" - but he said "That is why I do not interfere with you, I let you do your own duties."
  Why did he say so? - Because, I suppose he thought I could do my duties well.
  Had he confidence in you? - He said he had perfect confidence in me, and he left me to carry out my duties according to my discretion.
  Since Capt. McEuen has been here, you have had an office near his? - Yes.
  Ho near is it? Is it in the building? - Quite close to him, it is parallel with his office.
  You have seen him then very frequently? - Yes.
  Just a question or two with regard to the Regulations.  You just said there have been three sets of regulations, and you have pointed out the second regulation now in force referring to the detectives.  Do you consider the book of regulations, with the knowledge and experience you have of the Police Force, as being carried on fairly completely? - The best part of them are not carried out at all, and the rest are not applicable to a place like Shanghai.
  Just point out some of the principal points that you consider not applicable to the Police Force here. - No. 26, p. 19.  These clauses cannot be carried out with reference to dead bodies.  It is applicable to a place like Hongkong but it cannot be carried out here.
  Is there much of that book imported from Hongkong? - I think there is a large amount of it.
  And it might be useful there but is no useful here? - Yes.
  Witness was then asked to point out the rules that might possibly be carried out here, but which he said had not been carried out, the work being done in some other way.  Beginning with page 1 he pointed out that uniform had always to be worn on duty; but the Inspectors and the Chief Superintendent did not always carry out that order.  Passing on in the book, he said that on no occasion or under any pretence whatever was money or anything else to be accepted in the way of gratuity from any person except with the knowledge of his superior.  This regulation had never been carried out by the native detectives; they had received presents.  He could not say it was a common practice, but he knew it had been done without any report being made to the Captain Superintendent.  Then there was a rule that the Inspector should visit the Station houses daily to see that everything was in order.  But this duty was left to the Barrack sergeant who reported to the Inspector.  He next referred to the rule under which certain maters had to be read out to the members of the force before going on duty. This he said was never done, and he regarded this as a rule that ought certainly to be followed.  The Captain Superintendent of course must know that these things were not done.  At all events it was his business to see that the Regulations were carried out. He next referred to the Regulations respecting dead bodies, and repeated that they were altogether inapplicable to a place like Shanghai.  
  Plaintiff was then handed a copy of the N-C Daily News of the 30th June containing the paragraph in the minutes of the council referring to his dismissal, and he said that he considered the paragraph very injurious to his future prospects, not only in Shanghai but in any part of the world where the paper circulated.  It would prevent his obtaining an appointment in any other police force or any situation whatever.
  Mr. Drummond - Now with regard to the point of bringing charges against your superior officer.  You know that it is one of the grounds upon which you were dismissed.  What is your opinion about bringing charges against superior officers and your duty on that point?
  Witness - I do not think there is any distinction between a superior officer or any one living in the Settlement, supposing I have reason to believe he has committed a breach of the law.  I consider it to be my duty to make enquiries about any person.  I was always under the impression that I was paid to do that by the ratepayers of Shanghai, to find out crime any way, and that if I had sufficient evidence I could bring a charge.
  And you think that you are just as much bound to being a charge against a superior officer of the force as you are against any other individual if you have ground for bringing it? - I think so.
  Have you ever been told by anybody to make enquiries, and to make reports direct to members of the council? - Two years and a half ago I was told by Mr. Holliday who was then Chairman of the Watch Committee to enquire into any irregularities I found in the Police Force, and most especially the senior officers, and if I knew anything or found out anything I was to report to him or to Mr. Kalb.
  Mr. Holliday was then Chairman of the Watch Committee was he not? - Yes.
  And Mr. Kalb was also a member of the Watch Committee was he not? -Yes.
  I was told to do this and I believe all the other Inspectors were told to do the same thing.
  Where did this happen? - In Mr. Kalb's office, Reiss & Co.'s in the Hankow Road.
  Mr. Kalb was sick at the time, I believe? - Yes, we went one at a time and I was told what to do, and believe the same was told to the other Inspectors.
  Did you make any enquiries? - Yes.
  Were you told not to let Mr. Penfold know? - I was told distinctly not to go to Mr. Penfold but to go to Mr. Holliday or to Mr. Kalb.
  Then if you had been told that, and if you had reason for suspecting something wrong against Mr. Penfold, would you have reported it to Mr. Penfold or to the same member of the council? - I should have reported it to the same member of the Council.
  Then would you do so at any time if you had reason to being a charge against the Head of the Police Force? - Would you take it to him or to a member of the council? - I should have taken it to some one who was above him.  It would be no use going to him with a complaint against himself.
  Did you consider that in these instructions by Mr. Holliday to you there was anything very exceptional or extraordinary? - I do not think there was anything exceptional or extraordinary about it.
  By that do I understand that you regard the Municipal Council as your employers? - Yes.  According to my agreement I have to obey all orders of the Secretary and members of the Municipal Council.
  You look upon them as the highest authorities to whom you would have to go? 0 Yes.
  Now as regards Mr. Cameron, it is sated as you know in the letter dismissing you that you brought not only a groundless but a malicious charge against hm.  That I understand you deny.  Have you had any feeling of malice towards him at any time? - No, I have not had any ill-feeling or malice towards him.  We have not been on speaking terms.
  Has he ever stood in your way of promotion or anything of that kind? - No.  I have never applied for promotion, and he has not stood in my way that I know f.
  Have you ever had any quarrel with him? - He wrote a complaint to Captain McEuen some twelve months ago.  I have a copy of the complaint which was written.  At the time, I told Captain McEuen that if Mr. Cameron did not feel satisfied it had better go to the Watch Committee.  I told Capt. McEuen it seemed to me the height of ridiculousness.  He seemed perfectly satisfied and I said it seemed to me that Cameron wanted to have a growl about something.
  When Mr. Cameron came here did you do anything towards showing him the place or showing him is duties? - I made it my special business to take him round and show him what would be his duties.  I showed him all the places he would have to go to in case of trouble or anything of that kind and we were god friends up to the time of his writing that complaint against ne.
  Have you ever had any feeling of ill-will towards him from that time? - No, only in the month of February.  There was something happened and he went to Mr. Wilkinson with a case that I had and said something to Mr. Wilkinson.
  The plaintiff then made a long statement with reference to an incident which occurred in connection with a case in which a man named MacFarlane was charged with manslaughter.  He said Mr. Cameron ad gone to Mr. Wilkinson and said something to him about the plaintiff. Captain McEuen afterwards spoke to plaintiff and said the difference between the plaintiff and Chief Inspector Cameron was becoming public, and must be settled.  Plaintiff asked who it was that knew about it, and Captain McEuen replied that Mr. Wilkinson had spoken of it.  Plaintiff then expressed himself very anxious that the difference should be settled, and asked Capt. McEuen to bring the matter before the Watch Committee. Capt. McEuen said he would do so; but plaintiff never heard any more about it.  The plaintiff also referred to an interview which took place at Mr. Robinson's in connection with the same case.
  Mr. Drummond - Did he ever give you any reason for not bringing the matter before the Watch Committee?
  Witness - He said "We will wash our dirty linen at home." I told him I had no dirty linen to wash, but I wished the matter to go before the Watch Committee.
  Did you gather that he did not wish anything to be made public that would tend to the discredit of the Force in any way? - I was under that impression.
  The plaintiff then entered at length into the details of how a native detective had been employed in collecting a bad debt for the late Dr. Fisher.  This was in November. The detective succeeded in getting the money and he received a reward by orders of Mr. Cameron, of $10.  The detective told witness that he thought he was doing wrong.  Witness had to keep a "Duty" book of the detectives and he entered the incident in the book and pointed it out to Capt. McEuen at the end of the month. Capt. McEuen promised to see into it, but witness never heard anything more about it.
  Mr. Drummond - The employment of the detective in that way was distinctly against the rules of the Force? - Yes.
  From what was said by Mr. Holliday in a speech he made here of the old Inspectors about their having their debts collected in this way - and I think that was the only thing he could say against them - I was lead to believe that nothing of the kind would be permitted.
  Was here any reason at all why Mr. Cameron should take interest in having the debt collected? - I do not know, but Dr. Fisher used to visit him very often, and was a friend of his.
  Do you know whether they knew each other in Hongkong? - I did not know, but I am told that they did.
  The Court then adjourned till 9.30 next morning.
2nd September, 1885.
  The Court sat at 9.30 o'clock, when the plaintiff was recalled and further examined.
  Mr. Drummond - Mr. Mack, I understand you to say that some two and a half years ago or thereabouts you were instructed by Mr. Holliday, the Chairman of the Watch Committee at that time, and Mr. Kalb, to make certain enquiries about members of the Force, especially your superior officers, and to report to Mr. Holliday or Mr. Kalb the results of your enquiries.
  Witness - Yes.
  And did you report anything to them? - Yes, I reported to Mr. Holliday the squeezing of the opium tax by the native detectives.
  Anything else? - No.
  Nothing about your superiors? - No. I knew nothing about my superior officers.
  Did you find out anything about the superior officers of the Force? - No, I did not find out anything against them.
  And you had nothing to report to Mr. Holliday or Mr. Kalb about them? - No, not about the superior officers.
  If you had found out anything which you had thought improper on their part would you have reported it to Mr. Holliday or Mr. Kalb? - I should, most certainly.
  Then any information which Mr. Holliday may have obtained with regard to any of the superior officers of the Force was not obtained from you? - No sir.
Mr. Drummond - Now, will you tell the Court the facts in connection with the case of the lamp trimmer; - how it came to your knowledge; and relate the steps in connection with it as they occurred? What was the first thing?
  Witness - About the 5th or 6th Feb. of this year I was standing in the yard of the Police Station Compound and a coolie came along.  I thought I had seen his face somewhere before. I asked the gateman who the man was, and he said it was Mr. Cameron's house-coolie.  I asked him, "Where did you do pidgin before?" and he said he was a station coolie at the Carter Road station; Mr. Cameron brought him into the house and sent a lamp trimmer out there.  I did not ask anything more, and I did not think anything more about it at the time; but on the 1st of March I noticed that this coolie went in with the other coolies to receive his pay in the office.  I knew that the man had been employed in Mr. Cameron's house, and I thought it was suspicious, so when I go an opportunity I looked at the pay sheets, and I saw the man had drawn pay as a lamp-trimmer. I thought it possible that it was a mistake, being one month; and I thought would let it go on until two clear months had passed, so that there was no chance of its being a mistake by accident, or anything of that kind. About the middle of March the coolies in the station were ordered to clear out the Sikh constables' room - the three station coolies.  They objected to do it, saying that they had too much work.  They were taken to Capt. McEuen's office, who threatened to dismiss them if they did not do it.
  Mr. Robinson - Were you present when this was going on? - I was not present.
  Then you are relating what you have been told, not what you know of your own knowledge? - Yes.
  Mr. Drummond said that as a strict rule of English law the evidence was not admissible, but he thought as a matter of justice to the plaintiff, the opportunity should be given him to state all the circumstances in regard to the charge he made against Inspector Cameron.  It was for bringing this charge that he had been dismissed, and he thought it was only common sense, and a matter of justice hat he should be allowed to give every statement, whether it was within his direct knowledge or whether it came from second or third parties; and Mr. Robinson would have the opportunity of afterwards commenting upon the nature of the evidence.
  Mr. Robinson replied that the witness had sworn to speak the truth, and he would not be speaking it when he stated matters that were not within his own knowledge.  It was this seeking about for information that had caused all the trouble, and if Mack had gone to the fountain head at the beginning and not pried about for information the present case would not have arisen.  As a matter of justice to the Court, the Court should decline to go into the matters that were altogether beyond the knowledge of the plaintiff.
  The members of the Court consulted together, and Dr. Luhsen said it was not a criminal case, and they were acting more as arbitrators than as strict judges, and they thought it would be better for the plaintiff to continue with his story, so long as he did not travel too far into irrelevant matter.
  Mr. Drummond said he would leave it to the Court to check the plaintiff as soon as they deemed it advisable to do so.
  Mack then continued - It was brought to the notice of Captain McEuen that the lamp trimmer was not employed by the counciI, and he ordered him to be struck off the pay sheet, and he was accordingly struck off for the month of March.  Two or three days afterwards I went to Hongkong, and I came back on the 28th March.  In the beginning of April, on the 4th or 5th, I looked at the pay sheet, and I saw the lamp-trimmer's name was off.  I thought then it might have been a mistake, and that there was nothing to accuse the man about.  I said nothing about it, but some time afterwards, I went to the clerk's office and Sergeant Millne was making up the pay sheet.  I leaned on the desk and I saw that the lamp trimmer's name was again entered on the pay sheet, and I said to Millne, "Who ordered you to enter the lamp trimmer on the pay sheet again?" and Millne said, "Cameron."  Then I asked, "Who ordered his name to be taken off the pay sheet for March?" and he said, "Captain McEuen." I said nothing at the time, and walked away, and Millne had no idea what I wanted the information for.  I made it my business to watch the coolie, to see if he was employed in any way for the Council.  He came down to draw his pay, and I then thought, as I thought in February,  that there should be two months - that I would let it run for two months  and then make the necessary inquiries from the Secretary of the council as to whether he (Cameron) Was allowed a coolie.  The coolie drew pay for April and Mat, but he never did anything for the Council in any shape or form during these two months, not to my knowledge, and I watched him as closely as I could.  About the 8th of June, I went to Mr. Thorburn and I asked him what were the allowances of the Chief Inspector - was he allowed a private coolie by the Council?  Mr. Thorburn said "certainly not" and he said "why do you ask" and I said, "I am afraid there is something wrong."  He said what is it Mack. I said that the ratepayers were being embezzled out of a small sum of money each month, and the Police pay sheets were being falsified.  He sat down and sent for the pay sheets for February, March, April and May, and they came, and he saw the coolie was not entered for the month of March.  I told him what I had been told by Millne and the Chinese, and I said that I had reason to believe the ratepayers were being defrauded.  He said "Now I come to think of it, Mack, Mr. Cameron came and asked me if he could be allowed a coolie as he was allowed one in Hongkong, and I told him that Mr. Penfold had never been allowed one during his twenty years of service, and that I could not allow him one, and I told him that he had better go to Captain McEuen and ask him to recommend that he be allowed a coolie."  I then asked Mr. Thorburn, "Can Capt. MEuen give this man a coolie without a Board order from the council?" and he said "No." If he had said yes, there would have been no case, and the thing would have been finished, but he did not.  Mr. Thorburn next said that he expected he should get into this as he had signed the pay sheets.  I said no - that he signed the pay sheets as a matter of form only; and I then said "Supposing I go to Captain McEuen and accuse Cameron of having embezzled this money do you think that the Watch Committee will allow me to be present at the investigation that will be held this evening so that I may hear what is said and have an opportunity of proving my case?  Because I don't want any humbug about the matter, and rather than be humbugged, I would let it drop.  He (Mr. Thorburn) said "You had better go and see Mr. Keswick."  I went and saw Mr. Keswick.  I told him that I had been sent by Mr. Thorburn to see him about irregularities of my superior officer, and he asked me if I had seen Captain McEuen, and I said that was a point that I had come to ask him about, and also if I should have the opportunity of being present at the investigation to prove my case as I had every reason to believe I should have difficulty. Mr. Keswick told me I had better go and see Mr. Mackenzie.  He said that unfortunately he would not be able to attend the meeting that evening, as he had to attend a Board of Consuls' meeting, and he said, "You go and see Mr. Mackenzie, who is the Chairman of the Watch Committee, and who will be acting chairman of the council tonight, and he will tell you what to do."  I went and saw Mr. Mackenzie, and I told him that Mr. Thorburn had sent me to Mr. Keswick and Mr. Keswick had sent me to him.  I told him the particulars of the case just as I had told them to Mr. Thorburn, and I asked Mr. Mackenzie the same question as I had asked Mr. Thorburn - "Can Captain McEuen give Mr. Cameron a coolie without a Board order from the Council;" and he said "Certainly not, he cannot give the ratepayers' money away."  I then said to Mr. Mackenzie, "I will go to Capt. McEuen and tell him all about this matter if you will allow me to be present at the investigation so that I may have an opportunity of hearing what is said and proving the charge."  Mr. Mackenzie said "I will not being it up this evening as Capt. McEuen sits with the Watch Committee at their meetings now.  I will bring it up in his presence, but I will see the pay sheets, and I will see my colleagues tomorrow, and don't you say anything to Capt. McEuen about it until you hear from me."  I did not hear anything more about it until the 16th, when I received a memo from Captain Superintendent McEuen stating that I had made certain charges of irregularity against my superior officer.  This seemed to me a very curious way for the Council to act; I considered that they were not acting in good faith towards me.
  The memo referred to was then read as follows:-
  MEMO.
  June 16th 1885.
  Inspector Mack, I am informed, had made certain charges of irregularity against his superior officers to certain members of the council.  Inspector Mack will therefore, with as little delay as possible, furnish me with his reasons in writing for this impropriety in his conduct.  He will also inform me in writing the nature of the charge or charges he has preferred to the Council.
(Signed) J. P. McEuen, Capt. Superintendent of Police.
  Plaintiff continued - I wrote an answer to that memo, saying that I accused Chief Inspector Cameron of embezzling, but did not say more in consequence of what Mr. Mackenzie had told me, that I was not to say anything about it to Capt. McEuen.  This is a copy of my answer to Capt. McEuen's memo:-
  June 16th. 2885.
  SIR, - In answer to your note of this date I accuse Chief Inspector Cameron of having embezzled between the 4th of February and the 1st of June, 185, the sum of about $14.20, and causing the pay sheets to be falsified.
I have the honour, &c.
  Shortly after I sent it I distinctly saw Capt. McEuen and Mr. Camron in Capt. McEuen's office, and Mr. Cameron was reading my answer to the memo.  I distinctly saw him reading it, and I thought at once that I ought to be very careful in what I was doing.  Shortly afterwards I received a second memo. From Capt. McEuen.  It was as follows:-
  This explanation is not sufficient.  Inspector Mack must explain why instead of reporting the matter to me he chose the unusual course f going to members of council contrary to Police Regulations, &c.
J. P. McEuen, Capt. Superintendent of Police.
  I sent him a reply of which the following is a copy:-
  16tyh June, 185.
  SIR, - In answer to your 2nd memo I fail to see that I have acted in contravention of the Police Regulations,
I have the honour, &c.
  When I sent that reply I thought there was something wrong about this thing, that they were not enquiring into the matter in a fair and straightforward manner, and I wrote a letter to Mr. Keswick drawing his attention to the accusation I had made and asking to have an enquiry into the matter as soon as possible, so that he would give me an opportunity of proving the accusation to be well founded.  I received no answer to that letter, but about twenty minutes past eight o'clock in the evening I was ordered into the office, to see Captain McEuen.  There were present Captain McEuen, Inspector Cameron and Inspector Kluth.  Capt. McEuen told me that I was suspended from any duty until further orders.   I asked him what for, and he said for a breach of the Regulations.  I had a copy of the regulations with me, and I offered it to him and asked him to show me the rule that I had broken, and he said, "If it is not in there it is one of the Council's orders." I told him I was not acquainted with any of the Council's orders, but I knew the regulations that had been issued to me.  He said, turning round to Kluth, "This man I have trusted, and he has ignored me and gone to the Council." I said, "If you want any reasons for going to the Council you cannot expect me to explain them in the presence of Inspector Cameron.  You suspend me, and of course I shall have to submit to it, but I must ask you to give me I writing what I am suspended for."  He said "I will not give you anything in writing."  I asked him if Inspector Cameron was suspended.  He said "No, I know nothing about Inspector Cameron."  I said "It seems very strange that I should be suspended and not the man I accused," and he said "I know nothing about it."  I then left the office, but a little time afterwards I thought I had better go back, and I went back to Captain McEuen and said "Will you please give me in writing what I am suspended for."  He said "I shall give you nothing in writing. What there is, I shall put in the Order Book."  That is all that happened.
  On the morning of the 17th, I saw Mr. Mackenzie and I told him that I had been suspended the previous evening, but did not know what for, but Mr. McEuen had said that I had broken the rules and regulations; but I old Mr. Mackenzie that it seemed to me that I had been suspended for obeying his orders, as he distinctly told me to say nothing to Captainm McEuen or anyone else until I heard from him. He asked me if Inspector Cameron was suspended, and I said "No sir," and he said he would see about it.  I heard nothing more about it until the evening of the 18th, when Captain McEuen sent for me and told me to get my witnesses ready and my proof that I had, and attend the Board Room. At five o'clock I had three Chinese witnesses there, and Sergeant Millne was in his room ready to come and say what orders he had received if his presence was necessary.  About ten or fifteen minutes past five o'clock the members of the Watch Committee went into the Board Room with Mr. Keswick and  Capt. McEuen, and I and Mr. Cameron were left outside.  At a quarter to six o'clock we were asked in, and I entered the door; I heard Mr. Mackenzie say to Mr. Keswick, "Shall we tell him" and Mr, Keswick said, "No, let him explain."  Mr. Mackenzie asked me to explain my reasons for bringing this accusation against  Chief Inspector Cameron, and I told him that some time previous to February there had been a lamp trimmer employed at the Central Station, and about  the 4th of February, or as near as possible to that date, he was removed - by orders given under most unusual circumstances, no notice having been given to Inspectors on duty - to the Carter Road Station, and the station colie from there, who was a young robust man, was taken to Mr. Cameron's house and did not go into the  Station or work at all.  The coolie was employed in Mr. Cameron's house and came from there and received his pay as lamp trimmer.  After repeating some of the facts already given, plaintiff went on to say - I told them that I had three witnesses to prove that the coolie had not cleaned any lamps or done any other work for the Council, and these witnesses were the coolie himself who was employed in Mr., Cameron's house, and the two other coolies who cleaned the lamps and did the station work, and I told him, also that Sergeant Millne would come and prove the orders he received which caused the pay sheets to be falsified. Mr. Henningsen said he did not think that I ought to be allowed to use the word falsified.  I told him that Millne had received orders to enter something on the pay sheets which as not true, and therefore I did not know any other word that would express the same meaning.  Mr. Keswick hen asked me what motive I had in bringing the accusation against Mr. Cameron.  I told him I acted from a sense of right and wrong, that I had reason to believe fraud was being committed on the ratepayers, and I considered it my duty to bring the charge as a police officer.
  Mr. Henningsen asked me if I reported all cases to Captain McEuen.  I told him that many of my cases Captain McEuen knew nothing at all about.  He said, "Why didn't you take this case to Captain McEuen?" I told him that when I went to Mr. Thorburn I was not in a position to say that he (Mr. Cameron) had done anything wrong; I was no aware whether he was allowed a coolie or not, and my reasons for not going to Captain McEuen was because he knew that we were not on speaking terms, and if he was really allowed a coolie I would cause a great deal more unpleasantness. More than I cared about having, and there was enough of it then; that I did not wish to go to Mr. McEuen till I had ascertained from Mr. Thorburn whether Mr. Cameron was allowed a coolie or not. - Plaintiff then repeated how he went to Mr. Thorburn and Mr. Keswick, and Mr. Mackenzie, and what these gentlemen said to him. He then proceeded -
  Mr. Thorburn stated that he did not recollect telling me to go to Mr. Keswick, but to the Chairman of the Watch Committee, and I replied, "You distinctly told me to go to Mr. Keswick, otherwise I should not have gone."  Mr. Keswick then asked me if there was any animus on my side.  I said there was none that I was aware of, but was not on speaking terms with Mr. Cameron; but Capt. McEuen had investigated the matter and I thought it was all settled; but it did not matter to me whether he was a friend or not of if had reason to believe he was committing a breach of the law. It is very well known in Shanghai that I do not show favour to any one, friend or not, but always endeavor to bring the man to justice.
  Mr. Keswick then asked me how I managed to see the pay sheets.  I said they were kept in the outer public office, and any person could see them.  I had reason to suspect that something was wrong, and I made it my business to look at them the first opportunity I got.  Mr. Keswick said I had no right to look at the pay sheets or vouchers or documents belonging to the Force, and that I had no right to make enquiries about my superior officers; it was not my duty to do so.  Mr. Henningsen next asked me how it first came to my knowledge about the coolie, and I told him what the gateman had told me and Sergeant Millne.  Mr. Keswick said if I had taken the case to Captain McEuen I should have been all right.  I said it was rather late in the day to tell me that then.  I should have been told that before.  Mr. Mackenzie also told me I should have gone to Captain McEuen, and I replied that he should have told me that before, instead of telling me to wait to hear from him.  He said that Captain McEuen took all the responsibility.  I said "You told me he could not take any responsibility, and if I might ask I should like to know when did he take the responsibility?" but I could not get any answer.  I said if Capt. McEuen found it was wrong one month, in the month of March, and ordered the coolie's name to be struck off the pay sheets, surely it was  fraud when done without his knowledge for the month of February; but I could get no answer.  
  Then I asked to be allowed to examine my witnesses to satisfy them hat what I did I had done as fair and honest, and that I had acted entirely from a sense of duty.  I told them that I had three Chinese witnesses and Sergeant Millne.  Mr. Mackenzie asked if they should summon the witnesses, and Mr. Keswick and the members of the Committee shook their heads.  Mr. Keswick then said that when this first came to my knowledge in the month of February there must have been a very small sum embezzled from the Council, but yet I allowed it to go on until it accumulated to the sum of $14.00.  I told Mr. Keswick that it took months and sometimes years to work up sufficient evidence to justify a detective in accusing a man of embezzling, and my reason for delay was that I was not in a position to show that the man had committed any wrong until the time came when I made the complaint.  I told him that I had to make enquiries about a number of people in Shanghai on mere suspicion, and supposing I had gone to their employers and the suspicion turned out groundless, the employer would have a certain amount of suspicion against tat man for a long time.  That is not the principle that I had acted upon.  I have always been careful never to take away a man's character without having the very best reasons for doing so.  There was nothing more said, and I left Captain McEuen and Inspector Cameron inside.  They were not asked one word while I was in there.  Neither did they give one word of explanation about it, and I do not know to this day what explanation was given.  Mr. Cameron did ask me whether I was present when he gave the order to Sergeant Millne, and I said I was not; I could only refer to Sergeant Millne.
  I heard nothing more about it until the 22nd, when I met Mr. Mackenzie in the Foochow Road.  I said to Mr. Mackenzie, "What is going to be the result of this thing" Are they going to investigate the matter?  It seems to me that the council have acted very unfairly to me; it is very well-known that the Chinese will go to the strongest side, and they have suspended me from duty, and I think it is very unfair the way in which the Council has acted."   
  He said, "Old Thorburn is to blame for the whole of it, Mack, but it will be brought up at the Council meeting this evening."  He also told me that if I had gone to Captain McEuen it would have been all right, and I said, "Why didn't you tell me so in the first instance?"  He said Captain McEuen had taken all the responsibility.  I said, "How can he take the whole responsibility?" and he replied that I did not understand it; it was like that man Clarke who never exceeds the estimates.  I said, "I think this is a rotten argument, Mr. Mackenzie." He said, "Why?" I said, "If according to his estimates he can employ twenty foreign constables and did not employ them would he be allowed to put the money into his own pocket?" He said, "I don't know," scratched his head, and turned into Fearon, Low's compound.
  I heard nothing more about it until the 24th, when I received a letter from the Secretary, telling me that the Watch Committee had thoroughly investigated the matter and had come to the conclusion that I should be dismissed.  I wrote an answer to that letter, and I heard nothing more until the 30th, when I was called to Captain McEuen's office, and he told me I was dismissed the service.  I asked him what for, and he said it was a Board order.  He would not give me anything in writing, and told me I had better go and see Mr. Thorburn.  I went to Mr. Thorburn, and he told me he would see the Council about it next week.  I said, "Are you going to keep me a week without letting me know what I am dismissed for?" He told me he would see the Council and let me know bye and bye.  On the 3rd of July I received a letter saying I was dismissed in accordance with a letter received on the 25th of June.
  Mr. Drummond -As regards the first letter you received from Captain McEuen asking you for an explanation of your conduct in committing an impropriety, your reply you gave no explanation?
  Witness - No Sir.
  Why not? -I could not give a reply unless I disobeyed instructions.  I had been distinctly told by Mr. Mackenzie, the Chairman of the Watch Committee, not to tell Captain McEuen about it till I hard further from him.,
  Could you give any other answer except that?  Were you prepared to go on with the investigation? - No other explanation was required at the time, as far as I could see.  I thought I did quite sufficient, considering the circumstances of the case and the orders I had received from the Chairman of the Watch Committee.  I thought that I could not do anything more than make the charge against the man and prove it as soon as they gave me an opportunity.
  Did Mr. Thorburn at that interview you have mentioned when you first went to see him, tell you to go and see Captain McEuen, and did you refuse to do so? - Nor Sir; I could not disobey his order.  My agreement says distinctly I am to obey his orders, and I should render myself liable to instant dismissal.
  Did he tell you to go, and did you refuse? - N; he told me to go to Mr. Keswick.
  Then what do you say about the fifth paragraph[k of the petition, that when you made the charge to the Secretary of the Council, he told you that you ought to make such charges to the Captain Superintendent, and that you declined to do so? - That is utterly untrue, because it is more than I dare do.  I dare not disobey the order of the Secretary, and if Mr. Thorburn had given me an order of that kind I should have had first to go to Captain McEuen; but he sent me to Mr. Keswick, and I obeyed him.
  Was any answer to your statement to the Watch Committee made by Captain McEuen or Mr. Cameron or anybody else at the meeting while you were present? - No. I told the Watch Committee hat Millne told me he had received orders from Mr. Cameron to re-enter the lamp-trimmer after Capt. McEuen had ordered him to strike his name off.  Capt. McEuen said, "The idea of Mr. Mack enquiring into my actions!" And the only thing that Mr. Cameron said was to ask me whether I was present when he gave the orders to Sergt. Millne.
  Was there any investigation of any kind held into the charges while you were present in the room? - No none whatever.
  Could any investigation have been held without you being present to to conduct it as far as the prosecution of the charge went? - I do not think a proper investigation could have been carried out without I was present, and I have never been present at an investigation.
  You know that one of the reasons given for your dismissal is that Captain McEuen says that you were exceedingly disrespectful to him on a certain occasion.  When do you understand that disrespect to have taken place? - On the evening of the 16th.
  Where? - In his own office.
  At the interview you were suspended? - Yes.  Inspector Cameron and Inspector Kluth were present.
  The substance of that interview you have already stated to the Court.  Did you on that occasion in anyway lose your temper and self-control for a moment? - Not for a moment, I am positive.  I spoke to him in my ordinary tone of voice, and I kept calm.
  Did you use any language or words which upon reflection afterwards might be considered improper? - No.
  Was your manner disrespectful? - Not that I was aware of.
  Can you remember anything that could be taken as disrespectful? - No, I cannot.  I do not know what Capt. McEuen takes for disrespect.
  Did he at that interview say anything which conveyed to your mind the impression that he considered you had been disrespectful? - No, he did not say or hint in any way that I was disrespectful, and I am sure he would have told me in a moment if I had been, for he is a man who resents it pretty quickly.
  When did you see him next? I saw him, but not to speak to, on the following day.  On the 17th an order was written by Inspector Cameron, saying that he had been instructed by the Captain Superintendent that I was not to be allowed in the charge Room.  It was shown to me by the Inspector on duty.  I often saw Captain McEuen, but he never spoke one word to me about having been disrespectful to him in any way, and the first I heard of the disrespect was when I received the letter from the Secretary of the Council dated the 24th.  That was the first intimation I had of any disrespect, and from that day to this I have not been able to learn how I was disrespectful.
  Plaintiff was then examined on the question of damages, and he said under the circumstances of his dismissal here he would not be able to obtain a situation in any other Police Force in the world; but in case he recovered the amount claimed as damages he thought it would be a sufficient vindication of his character.
  The plaintiff was then cross-examined by Mr. Robinson.  He said - I am a British subject.  My father was born in London, and I was born there also.  
  Mr. Robinson - Take your mind back to the spring of 1884.  Did you then take a man to Chief Inspector Cameron and recommend him as a candidate for the post of constable? - I cannot say, because I have taken several men and recommended them - men who have done something for the service.
  In the month of April, 1884, did you recommend a man to Mr. Cameron? -In the month of April, 1884, I may have taken several men to Chief Inspector Cameron.  But I cannot remember them unless you give me some particulars about them
  If you did take anyone would not his name appear in the candidate book? - I don't know whether it would or not.  That would be Mr. Camron's business.
  Did you know from your experience that all candidates are entered in a book? - I am told that they are.
  You have old us a good many facts, Mr. Mack, which you only heard from others.  Do you believe they are entered in a book? - Yes.
  Now did Inspector Cameron tell you that he had been told that a man you recommended bore a bad character? - If I possibly could, Mr. Robinson, I would rather know who the man is.
  Mr. Robinson pointing out the man's name in the book of candidates; but the plaintiff did not appear to recognize it.  Mr. Robinson then explained that the man had previously been dismissed from the Force.
  Witness - Now I know who you mean.
  You remember recommending a man to Mr. Cameron who had previously been dismissed from the Force? - Yes.
  You knew he had been dismissed, and you recommended him? -- Yes, and I told Mr. Cameron so.
  At the time? - Yes.  I told Mr. Cameron he had been dismissed for fighting in a tea-shop.  Mr. Camron saw the man at the Mixed Court a few days ago, and asked him to give him information.
  Since the present system of the Police Force has been in action, have you ever known a man who had been dismissed from the Force to be taken on again? - No, I cannot remember an instance - not at present.
  Do you remember Mr. Cameron, a day of wo afterwards, coming and telling you that this man had been dismissed and that he could not be taken on again? - I took the man to Mr. Cameron and recommended him for the Force because he had assisted me to get the telegraph able robbers.  I told Mr. Cameron that he had been dismissed, but it was for fighting in a tea-shop, and Mr. Cameron said he would speak to Captain McEuen about it, and if he would allow it the man would be taken on.
  Where did he tell you this? - In his own office.
  Have you any recollection of being exceedingly angry and expressing your anger at Mr. Cameron when you found he would not be taken on? - No. One Chinaman is just the same to me as another.
  Did you user this expression, "I'll be G---d--- if I ever recommend a man again to this Force if I have fifty good men?" - I did not say anything of the kind.  I never used such an expression to Mr. Cameron.
  Mr. Robinson - That will do so far as that man is concerned.  Now come to the question of your instructing natives to make enquiries about Mr. Cameron taking bribes.  Do you know a detective named Sow-ling?
  Plaintiff - Yes.
  Was he not one of the men you principally trusted? - Yes, Until I proved that he swore a warrant falsely against a man, I trusted in him.
  And when did he do that? - About nine months ago.
  That would be about the beginning of this year? - Previously to that you had great rust in him? - I put great trust in him.
  Now did you about July or August 1884 instruct Sow-ling to enquire of the native constables whether they had been paying money to Inspector Cameron? I did not give instructions to Sow-ling to make enquiries about Mr. Cameron, but I gave him instructions to make enquiries about two natives in the next office to Mr. Cameron.  If the Court will allow me I will explain it, and I will save a great deal of trouble.  These two Chinese were the writer and the interpreter, whose name is Yang.  They were in the same office as Sergeant Millne, next to Inspector Cameron's room.  These were the two men I alluded to, and I did not tell him to make enquiries as to whether they received money, but as to whether they squeezed from the new native constables.
  What did you understand by squeezing from them? - I was told they were in the habit of going to an opium shop and making the new constables pay for a certain amount of opium for them.  They are most inveterate opium smokers.  That is what I meant.
  Did you keep a book called a "duty-book"? - Yes.
  In that book was the work that you gave the detectives entered? - Yes.
  Did you enter these instructions to Sow-ling? - There are only two lines for each man, and I entered it under the head of "general enquiries."
  In his particular case did the enquiries come to anything? - No; I told him to report to me if he found out anything; he did not tell me anything and I thought no more about t.  I don't speak much Chinse.  I spoke to Sow-ling in pidgin English.  He understands English pretty well, and I know no reason why he should misunderstand me.
Now did Sow-ling make a report to you of the enquiries he had made" - No, he did mot.  I told him if he found out anything he was to let me know.
  Did he make a report to you? - No.
  Now did he not give you a list of the constables from whom he had mad enquiries? - No, he only gave me the names of two loafers who had got into the force, and they were afterwards dismissed.
  Do you remember on the 30th September, 1884, Mr. Cameron making a formal complaint against you of having instructed one of the native detectives to make enquiries of the different native members of the Force who had been taken on since Mr. Cameron came from Hongkong, and to find out how much money they had had to pay him before they were taken on as constables, and Mr. Cameron stating in his complaint that he was in a position to prove that the enquiries had been made about him. Do you remember that complaint? - Yes, but there was an interview between Mr. Cameron and myself some days before that complaint was made.
  What was the interview about? - He sent for me four or five days before that complaint was written to go to his office, and I went to his office and took a seat.  Cameron said one of the naïve detectives was making enquiries as to how much he received from the new constables before taking them on.  I said "Indeed?" There must be some mistake about it, but he said, "There is no mistake, and he says you instructed him to make the enquiries."  Then I remembered what I had told Sow-ling to do, and I laughed.  He said, "Mack, this is no laughing matter," and I said, "It is Chinaman like this; the man has made a mistake."
.  .  .
Our report will be continued in our next issue.
 

Source: North China Herald, 11 September 1885


IN THE COURT OF TREATY CONSULS.
Shanghai, 2nd Sept., 1885
Before Dr. Luhrsen, H.I.G.M.'s Consul-General and Senior consul (President); C. Alabaster, Esq., H.B.M.'s Acting Consul-General; and G. H. Scidmore, Esq., U.S. Vice-Consul-General in charge.
ARTHUR MACK v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
  This was a claim for $5,000 for wrongful dismissal.
  Mr. Drummond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Robinson for the defendants.
(Report continued from last issue.)
  The plaintiff then gave his explanation to how the mistake had occurred.  He said the Sow-king came and complained to him of loafers being engaged as constables, and he said to him, pointing with his thumb over his shoulder to the office of the interpreter and writer, "Do you think that these men in that office catchee chance.  If you think so, more better you enquire and talkee me." Mr. Cameron's office was next to the interpreter's and writer's, and Sow-king took the point with the thumb to mean that he was to enquire about Mr. Cameron as well as the interpreter and the writer, but witness swore that he did not mean him to do so.  He explained all this to Mr. Cameron at the interview, but Mr. Cameron was not satisfied, and he made the complaint against him. The complaint witness regarded as the height of ridiculousness.  Captain McEuen investigated the matter, and witness made the same explanation to him as he had previously done to Mr. Cameron, and he told Captain McEuen that any sensible man would have been satisfied with such an explanation.  Captain McEuen gave his decision in the matter, and the decision was read as follows:-
  "I have enquired of Inspector Mack as to whether he ever gave the native detective Sow-king instructions to enquire how much money the Chief Inspector was receiving from the native members of the force newly taken on.
  Mr. Mack denied ever having given any instructions of this nature to Sow-king, and that if Sow-king made any such enquiries about Mr. Cameron he must have mistaken his instructions.
  Mr. Mack regrets very much that Mr. Cameron should have suspected him of doing anything so mean.
  M. Mack states that the idea of his making any such enquiries through a native detective was very improbable.  Had he wished to do anything of the sort he would have employed some person outside the police force, as he was sure that any enquiries being made about another member of the Force would be certain to come to the ears of the person whose actions were being enquired into.  But the detective Sow-king being examined, he stated from the instructions he received from Mr. Mack, he made the enquiries complained of by Mr. Cameron, but as Mr. Mack denies any intention of giving any such instructions, his statement is deserving of every consideration.
  After giving due weight to Mr. Cameron's complaint, and I consider he had just grounds for complaint, I am of opinion that the instructions given to the detective must have been misunderstood, either proposely [purposely?] or from not comprehending distinctly what he, the detective, was ordered to do.  I regret exceedingly that anything of the sort should have occurred between two officers of the Force and can only hope that Mr. Mack will make an apology to Mr. Cameron for the annoyance and anxiety caused to Mr. Cameron in having his name mixed up with such a disgraceful charge as accepting bribes from native constable.  The members of the Council I know have the highest opinion of the Chief Inspector's integrity and I am sure will be glad that this painful matter would be settled privately.
(Signed) J. P. McEuen, C.S.P., 2nd October, 1884.
  Mr. Robinson - Do you confirm Captain McEuen's account of the statement you made to him as narrated here?
  Witness - No, I do not.  Capt. McEuen asked me whether that was what was said between him and me, and I told him no.  I still deny having given any such instructions to Sow-king, and I did not apologise because I had nothing to apologise for.
  Previous to that memo, being sent to you, did you attend one afternoon with Sow-king in Capt. McEuen's office? - N.
  Reflect again, say on Wednesday, 1st October? - No.
  You are quite certain that you did not go before Capt. McEuen with Sow-king with regard to that complaint? - I am quite sure.
  Are you quite sure that Capt. McEuen in your presence and in the presence of Mr. Cameron did not ask Sow-king who gave him instructions to make enquiries about Mr. Cameron taking money from a native constable? - Sow-king was never taken into Capt. McEuen's office in my presence and therefor he could not be asked anything of the kind in my presence.
  Mr. Robinson pressed this question several times of the plaintiff, who adhered to his answer.
  Mr. Robinson next questioned the plaintiff with regard to the coolie employed by Mr. Cameron.  Plaintiff said that he arrived at the $14.20 as the coolie's wages from the 4th of February to the 1st of June, leaving out March, at a salary of $5 per month.  He did not know he coolie's name, but could recognize him if he saw him.
  Mr. Robinson requested Wo sang-yuen, the coolie in question, to be brought into Court, and when he appeared witness said he was the man, and  said that he had noticed him working at the Central Station about the 5th or 6th of February.  He was quite sure of that.
  Mr. Robinson - Then if the coolie and Mr. Cameron both state that he was not at the Central Station at that time you would not believe them?
- Certainly not.  He was at Mr. Cameron's house.
Plaintiff then went on to state that he did not know the date the Sikh constables went to the Carter Road Station, but he supposed hat it was twelve months ago.  He had been to the Carter Road Station three or four times but could not say who was the colie employed there.  He supposed the Sikhs were still at Carter Road Station as they stil patrolled the Bubbling Well Road; but he had not been to Carter Road since he left the Force.
  Now you say the man you have seen was solely employed as Mr. Cameron's house coolie from the 4th or 5th of February to the beginning of June? - Yes.
  There is no mistake about that? - No.
  Now then please go to the 8th of June, when you had perfected your case against Mr. Cameron and you went to the Secretary.  Did you not ask the Secretary whether you could have an interview with the Council? - I asked him whether I could have an interview with the Watch Committee, but that was after a long conversation.
  Did you ask to have an interview with the council? - I did not.
  Were you not told that you could not have an interview with the Council? - No.
  Did you not then proceed to describe to the Secretary the charge that you wanted to bring against Mr. Camron? - No, not then.
  Did not the Secretary tell you that you ought to bring the charge through the Captain-Superintendent? - No.
  Did you decline to do so and give a reason? - It was more than I dare do to decline.  I had to obey his orders.
  Did you decline? - No.
   You did not make use of the words "It would be no use."? - No.
  You told us in your examination-in-chief that Mr. Holliday and Mr. Kalb, some two and a half years ago instructed you to make enquiries about members of the police force, including your superior officers, and report to them and be careful not to go to Mr. Penfold? - Yes.
  Have you since that period received express instructions that you were not to report to the Watch Committee or to members of the Council, but that all your reports were to go through the Captain Superintendent? -I have never received any instructions on the subject from that date to this.  If I had done so, I should have acted differently in this case.
  I am now asking for information on the subject.  Have you ever made any other reports to members of the Council since Capt. McEuen has been here? - No.
  Is this the only one you have made? -Yes.
  Mr. Robinson reverted to the replies given by the plaintiff to Capt. McEuen's memo and also to the coolie being employed by Mr. Cameron, but no fresh facts were disclosed, and then Mr. Robinson proposed to question the plaintiff on the Police Regulations that had been issued when Captain Superintendent McEuen had been in charge of the force, and plaintiff said that he had made himself thoroughly acquainted with them, but may of the regulations had never been carried out.
  Now when Capt. McEuen applied to you for your reason for going behind his back to the members of the Council, why did you not give him an answer?
  I was forbidden to say anything to him by the man I considered to be at the head of the Police Force, Mr. Mackenzie, Chairman of the Watch Committee.
  And you wish to tell us that you understood Mr. Mackenzie to tell you to say nothing about it to your superior officer? - He distinctly told me not to say anything to Captain McEuen until I heard from him.
  Why did you not give that as your answer? - I could not do so. I could not tell him about Mr. Mackenzie telling me not to say anything to him.
  Then you take Mr. Mackenzie's recommendation not to say anything to Captain McEuen to amount to permission to you to break the Police Regulations? - I do not consider that I broke the Police Regulations.
  Rule 3 calls upon you to receive orders and instructions from, and make your reports to the Captain Superintendent? - The rule is no carried out.
  You are familiar with rule 3, page 41, which says you are to receive your orders and make your reports to the Captain Superintendent.  Why didn't you in this case obey that rule? - I have not obeyed the rule since Capt. McEuen has been here.  I never reported to him till I had a clear case, and I had to go to Mr. Thorburn to find out whether Mr. Cameron was allowed a coolie or not, and if he had said "Yes" there would have been an end of te matter.  It has never been my practice to report to the Superintendent since I have been in the Force until I had a complete case; and previously the Captain Superintendent has been perfectly satisfied with that.
  Under rule 12 on page 46, under the heading miscellaneous, are you not expressly told that no petition is to be forwarded to the council except through the Captain Superintendent? - I forwarded no petition.  I am familiar with the rule.
  You were suspended on the 16th of June, I believe? - Yes.
  What reason was given for your suspension? - Breach of the rules.
  Did Capt. McEuen make use of the word insubordination? - No.
  You asked Captain McEuen whether Chief Inspector Cameron was suspended, and he told you no.  Now did you not tell him that he had no right to suspend you? - No. When he said to Kluth that I had ignored him, I told him that if he knew the particulars of my going to the Council he would know that he was not doing right to suspend me, and I could not tell him when  the man I had accused was standing by his side.
  You thought it competent for you to question the power of your superior officer? - I was answering his question.
  You told us you attended a meeting of the Watch Committee on the 18th of June and you were invited to give such explanation as you chose? - I was asked to give my reasons for making the charge.
  In the course of stating those reasons, when it was pointed out to you that you should have gone to the Capt. Superintendent, did you no make use of the expression "It was no use?" - I did not.  I said I thought it was late in the day for then to tell me that.
  Today you have told us you had three native witnesses in attendance. - It was so at that time.  The men I had were the coolie himself, and the two station coolies who cleaned the lamps; and Sergeant Millne was prepared to tell the orders he received which caused the pay sheets to be falsified.
  And then the Committee told you that they did not consider it necessary to hear your witnesses? - Mr. Mackenzie shook his head when I asked him.  He had previously asked Mr. Keswick, and Mr. Keswick shook his head.
  Did they tell you that they did not consider it necessary to examine your witnesses? - Well, they shook their heads and I thought how whole thing was settled as far as their opinion was concerned; but they did not make use of those words, nor words to that effect.
  Did not Mr. Keswick tell you that if you had acted in good faith and gone to Capt. McEuen the whole thing could have been explained to you in two minutes? - Mr. Keswick said that if I had gone to Captain McEuen it would have been all right.
  In the letter of the 24th of June in which the intention of the Council to dismiss you was announced, the concluding passage invites you to give any explanation you may desire for the purpose of reconsidering the case.  Did you ever make any explanation to re-open it? - In the first place they told me that I was dismissed the Force.
  Did you take any advantage of the offer given you to make explanation? - I gave them the only answer that a man could give them - a man who considered he had acted in good faith to the Council and the community.
  Mr. Drummond handed in a copy of the letter as follows:-
  Central Police Station, 24TH June. 1885.
  SIR, - I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th instant in which you inform me that the Watch Committee have carefully investigated the accusation made by me against Chief Insp. Cameron and have come to the conclusion that the accusation was wholly unfounded and ought not to have been made.
  In reply to this I have only to say that I have never yet been given the opportunity of proving the accusation made.
  You also state that the Council were unanimously of opinion, after consulting with the Captain Superintendent, that I should be dismissed from the police force.
  As I have had no opportunity of proving the accusations made, I cannot admit that they are groundless, or that any just reason exists for my dismissal.
  As to my manner towards the Captain Superintendent on the night of the 16th instant, I respectfully deny that it was in any way disrespectful, but as I am not informed in what the alleged disrespect consists, I am unable to say more than I have already said.
I have the honour to be, &c., Arthur Mack.
  Now if the Capt. Superintendent and the Watch Committee were quite satisfied there was no irregularity, what business of yours was it to insist that there had been? - The Watch Committee told me that they had thoroughly investigated the mater, but they never did.  If they told me that black was white I need not believe them.  I acted in the interest of justice.
  Do you believe at this moment that there is a word of truth in the charges? - I believe they are well founded.
  Mr. Robinson - I could not follow you yesterday and I want you now to explain what you said about Captain McEuen and some interview at my office in connection with the case of McFarlane, and also as to what you said about Mr. Cameron employing a native detective to collect a bad debt.
  Plaintiff - I said this, that Cameron had said something to Mr. Wilkinson, and Captain Superintendent McEuen came back from Mr. Wilkinson's office and told me the difference between Mr. Cameron and myself would have to be settled as it was getting public. I said how could it be getting public, and Captain McEuen said that Mr. Wilkinson knew about it.
  Plaintiff then went on to explain that in connection with McFarlane's case, he went and saw Mr. Wilkinson and that gentleman told him that he would not take up the case in the lower court; but the Council's legal adviser would do so.  Witness took the prisoner into the Court, and got him remanded, and then later in the day Captain McEuen and himself went to see Mr. Robinson.  As soon as they got into Mr. Robinson's office, Mr. Robinson said in reference to McFarlane's case "There is nothing in the case at all - nothing at all." Then Cap. McEuen told Mr. Robinson that Inspector Cameron knew nothing about the case; the facts were known only to himself and witness, and Mr. Robinson answered that if Inspector Cameron did not know all the case, he ought to know, as he was Chief Inspector. - Plaintiff continuing his evidence said - I hen said to Mr. Robinson, "If you will allow me a word to explain perhaps you will understand he full particulars of the case." But Mr. Robinson said "There is nothing in it, here is nothing in it," and we then left the house; Captain McEuen saying "It is no use waiting here."  Capt. McEuen went to see Mr. Keswick, and when he came back, he told me that he had reported you, (Mr. Robinson) to Mr. Keswick, that you had just entered into another agreement with the council, and that if you had not done so, you would not have got it for this year.
  Mr. Robinson - Do you remember the date of that?
  Plaintiff - It was in February I believe.
  Mr. Robinson - Yes, that was just about the date.  As a matter of fact, I did prosecute that case and the man was committed for trial.
  Plaintiff - Yes.
  Now you are reported to have stated that on the 7th of last November a native detective was employed by Mr. Cameron for the collection of a bad debt for Dr. Fisher.  How do you know that? - I saw the native detective come back with the $72 in his hand and he took it into Mr. Cameron's off ice.  He knew he had done something wrong because he came to me and told me what reward he got; because I kept the reward book.
  I believe it is contrary to the Rules for any one to receive a reward without the sanction of the Chief Superintendent? - Yes.
  Further questioned as to how he came to know about the circumstance, the plaintiff said the detective had shown the ten dollars he had got, and told him about it; and there was an entry in the detective's note-book of the duty he had been employed upon which would show that he was engaged for the best part of two days in collecting this debt.  Plaintiff reported the matter to Capt. McEuen.
  The Court then adjourned till the afternoon.
  On the Court being resumed,
  Mr. Drummond said that at an early stage in the proceedings he had asked that all witnesses might be ordered to leave the court; but he had since ascertained that Mr. Cameron and others had been standing at the door and listening to the evidence.  This was simply playing with the Court, and as the presence of some of these witnesses might prevent the Chinese witnesses from speaking freely, he asked that the Court would order the witnesses downstairs or into some othter room.
  The plaintiff was then re-examined by Dr. Drummond.  He said - Capt. McEuen did not tell me he had sanctioned the employment of the coolie in Mr. Cameron's house.  He had several opportunities to tell me, but he never said anything about it at all, or referred to the subject in anyway.  Yang, the interpreter, is still in the employment of the Municipal Council.  I have known him for some two years since he has joined the Force.
  Mr. Drummond began to question the plaintiff with regard to Yang's private character, but Mr. Robinson objected, saying this had nothing to do with the case.  Mr. Drummond contended that as Yang would be called as a witness, evidence as to his character was material; but Mr. Robinson read a statement of the evidence which he expected to get from Yang, and as this was of a purely formal character Mr. Drummond did not press the question.
  In explanation of Regulation No. 46 pointed out to plaintiff by Mr. Drummond, the plaintiff said he understood it to mean that no member of the Force shall send an application for promotion or relief, etc., direct to the council, but it must go through the hands of the Captain Superintendent; but the rule could not apply, he thought to a complaint brought in connection with his duty.  He was then asked by Mr. Drummond to find in the Central Station memo book the entry which refers to his suspension.  The memo was found and read, and the plaintiff stated it was the order for his suspension.  He saw it the same night that it was written and took a copy of it.  He was told he had committed a breach of the rules, and asked which, but was not told.  He did not write more fully in answer to this because he received definite orders from the Chairman of the Watch Committee not to say anything more to Captain McEuen; he therefore, could not write more without disobeying the orders of Mr. Mackenzie.
  FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MILLNE was then called and examined by Mr. Drummond.  He said - I am a sergeant in the Police Force.  I was in the early part of this year performing the duties of Superintendent's clerk, barrack sergeant and drill instructor.  I came here from Hongkong partly as drill instructor.  I made out the monthly pay-sheets.  I remember in April last being asked by Mack who ordered the lamp-trimmer to be struck off the pay-sheet.  I said "McEuen"; and he then asked me who ordered me to put it on again, and I answered "the Chief Inspector."  Captain McEuen ordered me to strike him off he March pay-sheet as I called his attention to the lamp-trimmer having been transferred to Carter Road.  It was my custom to call his attention to any alteration that had been made affecting the pay-sheet.  Mr. Cameron ordered me to put him on again after the March pay had been issued in April.  He did not work as a lamp-trimmer.  I never saw him doing any work.  I am barrack sergeant and I know every coolie, but did not see him employed at all.  Mr. Cameron gave me no reasons, that I recollect, for putting the coolie on the pay sheet again.  He asked why the man had been struck off and I told him. Then he said, so far as I recollect, that he was entitled to a coolie and would have one, and he told me to put him on the pay sheet again.  Mr. Cameron is my superior and I did not remonstrate with him, but did as I was told. I do not think the coolie was at work at the station in February, I believe he was at work in Mr. Cameron's quarters.  He drew his pay as lamp-trimmer for that month.  He got $5 per month as lamp-trimmer; I do not know whether Mr. Cameron paid him anything.  He was not supposed to work for anyone else.
  I was removed from the Office after Mack's suspension, the reason being because two sergeants had deserted from the Central Station and duty sergeants were needed.  I have no occasion to doubt the reason assigned for my removal. Before this, three other sergeants had deserted, but I was not removed then, because they were from three different Stations.  I have lost my Merit Class, and am not entitled to have it back yet.  Captain McEuen and Mr. Cameron have not spoken to me about this case; before last Saturday I was not told by anyone that I should be wanted here.  In March, this coolie was doing the same work as in February in Mr. Cameron's quarters.  I never saw him do any work around the Station beyond carrying a couple of buckets of water from the tap.  For the four months he was employed in the same way in Mr. Cameron's quarters.  I was canteen sergeant for 14 months but ceased to be so in February of this year.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson, witness said he did not remember a coolie named Li Ah-pao being taken on at the Central Station about 1st October 1884.  When asked to see if he could find the coolie's name in the pay sheet handed to him, witness said "The names of the coolies are not written on the pay sheet in English and I cannot read Chinese."
  Mr. Alabaster took the pay sheet, found the name, and read it to the Court.
  Witness continued - I do not know whether this coolie was at work at the Central Station.  The same man appears on the pay sheet from October till February '85.
  A native named Wo Sang-yuen, was here brought into Court, and witness was asked if he knew him.
  Witness - I know this man by sight, but do not know his name.  He was at the Carter Road Station I believe.  He came back to Central Station as an exchange with the lamp-trimmer in the early part of February.  I cannot swear to the man but know that some coolie at Carter Road drew the pay.  I cannot swear who the money was paid to.  The men were changed in February, I think, but cannot recollect exactly.  I think the Sikhs were transferred from Carter Road to the Central Station some time subsequent to this exchange of coolies.  There are two coolies down in the pay-sheet from September last to the present time with the exception of the month of March.  The man then omitted as this man (pointing to the coolie Sang-yuen), Captain McEuen directed me to strike this coolie off the pay-sheet when I was making up the sheet for March.  I put the name down to identify either of the coolies, so an exchange would cause no alteration, but I know this (Sang-yuen) is the man I was ordered to strike off.  This man was certainly struck off in March; but if it were shown that he was at Carter Road till the 17th or 18th March, I suppose he ought not to have been struck off; he was entitled to pay for that seventeen or eighteen days.  I saw him about the Station, but I never saw him doing any work.  The Station coolies clean the quarters of the Sikhs.  I do not know the names of these coolies.  If anyone told me this man (Sang-yuen) cleaned the Sikhs' quarters I should call him a liar. - (Laughter). - I am in the habit of visiting the Sikhs' quarters about twice in evert twenty four hours.  I never saw this man (Sang-yuen) there.  The two coolies once objected to clean the quarters, and there was some trouble, but they cleaned them when they were told to.  I never showed the pay-sheets to Mack. If he saw them, he took them out and looked at them himself.  An officer can come in and look at my papers if I am not there.  I have never falsified the pay-sheets.  All the money that has been put down on the pay-sheets has been paid.  I was asked by the plaintiff to hold myself in readiness to give evidence before the Watch Committee last June to prove what I have said today about the pay-sheets.
  Br Mr. Drummond - Mr. Cameron's quarters are above the offices of the Capt. Superintendent in the same block, facing the Honan Road.
  Mr. Drummond - You were asked a question by Mr. Robinson as to whether the pay-sheets had been falsified, and you said all the money had been paid.  Undoubtedly - but has it been paid to persons for doing Municipal work and that alone?
  Witness - If Mr. Cameron was entitled to this coolie, the coolie was paid for Municipal work alone; if not, he was not.  Mr. Cameron never told me whether Mr. McEuen had given him permission to have a coolie, he said he was entitled to a coolie, and he would have one.
  Mr. Alabaster - Whose name was it you struck off the pay-sheet?
  Witness - This man Sang Yuen's, not Li Ah-pao's.
  Mr. Alabaster - Li Ah-pao's name is not on the pay-sheet for March, but on all the others.
  Mr. Robinson stated the confusion arose by the transfer of the two collies having taken place in the middle of the month.
  The Witness said the reason that Li Ah-pao's name did not appear on the pay-sheets for March was probably because the writer made a mistake, as some of these men could not write their own names.
  Nok Ah-Ling, a native, was then called, and being cautioned to tell the truth, said that just now he was out of employment, but that previously he had been employed at the Central Station in the charge-room as interpreter.  He had been altogether some 6 ½ years in the Police Force.  He left the Force in July 6th of this year.  On the 5th or 6th of February last he received orders from Mr. Cameron to send the lamp-coolie to the Carter Road Station. He identified Li Ah-pao as the man.  The coolie went there, and another one from the Carter Road came to the Central Station to take his place.  After the lamp coolie left, the two other station coolies had to do his work of trimming lamps, as well as their own work, as no other lamp-trimmer was taken on.  Witness was told by the coolie that was sent to Carter Road that he got $5 per month for trimming the lamps at the Central Station, and $6 when he went to Carter Road.  The coolie that came from the Carter Road to the Central Station told witness that he got $5 per month, but Mrs. Cameron paid him one dollar more, making $6.  This coolie never came down; he stayed in Mr. Cameron's quarters all the time in March, April and May. On the 12th of 13th June Mr. Cameron sent him down to work to clean the Station room.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Robinson, witness said he saw the coolie go to Carter Road by Mr. Cameron's order and the other coolie came back.  The coolie told him that he got $5 at the Central and $6 at the Carter Road. Witness here identified Sang-yuen, who was ordered into Court for the purpose.  Witness concluded by saying that he only knew what the colie had told him.
  Mr. Robinson hen opened the case for the defence.  He said if he understood the evidence which had been given for the plaintiff, this case might well be described as "much ado about nothing." He could mot discover a single thing about the case, except a trumpery dispute arising out of a misunderstanding about a colie, upon which, with that stern regard for duty which the plaintiff had described, he thought it right to found a charge against his superior officer.  To use a vulgar expression, the plaintiff had discovered a mare's nest.  The plaintiff claimed the lump sum of $5,000 for wrongful dismissal; and the petition stated that he had not only suffered damage through loss of his employment, but also through injury to his reputation and character; but it was quite obvious that no Court could give damages for defamation on a claim for wrongful dismissal, or damages for wrongful dismissal on a claim for defamation. The plaintiff arrived at the sum of $6,000 by calculating the amount which he would have received in salary up to the expiry of his agreement, together with certain allowances; but Mr. Robinson contended that even if the dismissal were proved to be wrongful the plaintiff would not be entitled to have the damages calculated on such a basis.  
  There were two simple questions to be decided by the Court - first, was the dismissal justifiable, and secondly, was the publication of the minute relating to the dismissal justifiable? He called the attention of the Court to the 24th of the Land Regulations, and said that Regulation conferred upon the Municipal Council a discretion with regard to the employment of its servants with which he thought the Court would be very loath to interfere, supposing that discretion had been honestly exercised.  The question therefore arose, did the Council exercise its discretion honestly in dismissing the plaintiff? The police service was very much on the same footing as the naval and military services, and as no civil court would think of interfering with the decisions of the naval or military authorities where they had exercised their discretion honestly, so, he argued, the Court should not interfere with the decision of the Council if it should be found that the Council had acted honestly in their discretion.
  The plaintiff had accused Inspector Cameron of trying to take a paltry advantage of the Municipal Council by getting the use of a servant without paying for it; but if the plaintiff had at once gone to his superior officer, the Captain Superintendent of the Police Force, and made the charge to him, as Mr. Robinson would clearly prove that it was is duty to do, he would have found out at once that Mr. Cameron was employing this coolie with the knowledge and sanction of the Chief Superintendent.  It would be shown that the plaintiff went first to the Secretary of the Council; and the Secretary, wo of course did not know anything of the merits of the case, pointed out to him that his proper course was to go to the Superintendent and explain his charge; but the plaintiff declined to go.  The plaintiff denied this; but Mr. Robinson believed the Secretary of the Council would tell the Court that this was so, and also that he told the plaintiff to go and see the chairman of the Council and the Chairman of the Watch Committee and ask their permission to attend a meeting of the Watch Committee which was going to take place, and which Mack wanted to attend.  These gentlemen would also be called, and would state what took place at those interviews.    The plaintiff had stated that Mr. Mackenzie prohibited him from going to Capt. McEuen; but Mr. Robinson imagined that this would be flatly contradicted by Mr. Mackenzie.  
  Mr. Robinson then briefly described the nature of the evidence that he intended to produce. He submitted that the fittest person in the world to judge of the propriety or impropriety of Mack's conduct were the Council and the Captain Superintendent; and if they considered that he had broken the police regulations, and that his conduct rendered it necessary for them to dismiss him from the Force, they had a right to dismiss him.  The Watch Committee, asssited by the Chairman of the Council, held a meeting and discussed the question, and called upon Mack and Cameron for their explanations, and heard explanations from the Secretary of the Council and the Superintendent of Police.  The plaintiff's explanation made a very unfavourable impression on the Committee; and after hearing his statement and the statements of the Secretary and the Captain Superintendent they came to the conclusion to recommend - only to recommend - it was not final - that Mack should be dismissed.  No doubt they were influenced by their own appreciation of what they had seen, and by the views of Capt. McEuen - namely, that it would be impossible to preserve discipline in the Force if both Mr. Cameron and the plaintiff remained in it.  The recommendation of the Watch Committee was adopted at a general meeting of the Council, and a letter was written to the plaintiff by the Secretary, by instruction of the Council but even then the plaintiff was given an opportunity of explaining his conduct and retrieving the error he had committed.  However, he failed to give any satisfactory explanation of his conduct, and his dismissal took effect. Mr. Robinson did not think it could be said that the Council had not treated the plaintiff as fairly as they could, and that they had not honestly and fairly exercised the discretion entrusted to them by the Land Regulations.  
  Mr. Robinson then proceeded to deal with the question of the publication of the minutes relating to the plaintiff's dismissal, contending that the publication was privileged, being made in the honest discharge of a public official duty.
  JOHN BLACK CAMERON was then called and examined by Mr. Robinson.
  You are Chief Inspector of the Shanghai Police? - Yes.
  And have been since the 1st Jan., 1884. You were previously in the Hong Kong Police Force? - Yes; for twelve years.
  What was your rank? - Inspector.  I was appointed Acting Inspector in April, 1875, and confirmed in that appointment in May of the same year.
  When did you first have occasion to bring Detective Inspector Mack's conduct to the notice of the Capt. Superintendent? - In September, 1884, in consequence of information I had received that he had instructed a native detective to enquire of the native police who had joined since my arrival here how much they had to pay me before I would give them an appointment in the police.
  What was the name of the detective? - Sow-king.
  What did he tell you?
  I asked him through the office interpreter if he had been making enquiries of the native constables who had recently joined the Force about me.  He said he had.  I asked him who had instructed him to make these enquiries, and he said Mr. Mack had.  I asked him then to make use of the language, as nearly as he could recollect it that was used by Mr. Mack in the occasion.  He  said Mr. Mack asked him to enquire of the native police who had joined since I come this side how much they had to pay me before I gave them pidgin in the police.  I asked him if he had made enquiries, and if he had reported the result. He said he had, and produced a note book with the numbers of several men who I was aware had joined during my time.  These numbers were not on the pages of the book, but on several, showing that the enquiries had been made on several occasions.
  What did you do in consequence of this information? - I sent a report to the Captain Superintendent requesting him to forward my report to the Chairman of the Municipal Council and the Watch Committee.
  Did he investigate the matter? - Afterwards he did.  Afterwards, when I saw the report had not been forwarded, I wrote another letter requesting that if he did not forward the report to the Council, he would, as head of the police, investigate the matter himself.
  Captain McEuen gave you each a memo on the subject did he not? - He did.
  From the time of that complaint by you, did you cease to be on speaking terms with Mr. Mack? - I did. I considered I had just cause to be.
  Can you assign in your own mind any reason for Mack acting as he did? - Well, the only reason I can assign is that it as in consequence of my having refused to comply with a request of Mr. Mack's some time previously.
  What request was that? - It was a request to take a man into the Police Force, whom he had brought to my office, recommending his appointment.
  Did you put the man's name down at first upon Mack's application? - I did.
  What was his name? - Chung Shing.
  You put him down as recommended by whom? - Mr. Mack.
  Did Mr. Mack tell you at the time that he recommended him to you that tis man had been dismissed from the Force? - He did not.
  You are quite certain of that? - Quite certain.  Had he said so, it would have been sufficient to have prevented my accepting his application.
  Under the regulations, can a man who has once been dismissed from the Force be taken on again? - He cannot.
Being recommended by Mr. Mack, you did not make any enquiries about the man, did you? - I did not consider it necessary, as he was recommended by a brother officer.
  You were told he was a bad character? - It was brought to my notice afterwards.
  Did you tell Mack that? - I did.
  Do you remember what reply Mack made t you? - I do.
  Please repeat it. - Mack returned from the Mixed Court.  The man he recommended was to be taken on that day as a constable; I gave him the usual order to apply to the interpreter for his uniform, and it was between the time I gave him the paper and the time I saw Mack that it was reported to me that the man had been dismissed previously.  I then took the paper from him and told him to wait.  Bye and bye, Mack came into my office.  I asked him if he was aware that the man he had recommended had been dismissed from the Police Force.  Without answering my question, he got into a passion and made use of filthy language.  The words were "I will be G---d---; If I have fifty good men I will never recommend another for a Shanghai Policeman, because everything I do seems not to be right."  I said it was not necessary for him to use such language in my office, and I would allow him to do so.  I had asked him a civil question and I expected a civil answer.  He did not answer my question, but he rushed into the Superintendent's office, which is next to mine.  What took place there I do not know.  When he came out shortly afterwards, Inspector Kluth was talking to me, not in connection with this case at all.  He was waiting to go into the Superintendent's office, but did not do so in consequence of Mack being there before him.
  Do you remember being in the Captain Superintendent's office one afternoon when Mack and the detective Sow-king were there? - Yes.
  You remember that distinctly? - Yes.
  Who were present? - Captain McEuen, Inspector Mack, Sow-king and myself.
  Just tell us what took pace. - It was with reference to the report I had sent in about Mack's conduct in making enquiries about me.  Capt. McEuen questioned the detective, asked him if he had been making these enquiries.  He said he had. He asked him to repeat the orders he had received.  He did so, saying very much what he had said to me before.
  Did Capt. McEuen ask him anything further? - I do not remember anything.
  The question was repeated, and Mr. Robinson asked witness to see if he could not recollect something else that had been aid; but after thinking for some little time he said he could not remember anything.  There was some other conversation, but he really could not recollect what it was.
  Mr. Robinson - Now with reference to the two coolies, you knew the men I mean - Sang-yuen and Li Ah-pao? - I do.
  Can you tell me when Sang-yuen was first employed? - Sang-yuen was first employed to my knowledge at the Central Station in June, 1884, as a punkah coolie, and was sent on the 1st Sept. to Carter Road as a station coolie, and he remained there as such until, the 17th or 18th of March, when he was transferred to the Central Station.  It was done by order.
  Who gave the order? - I did.
  Why did you give that order? - Previous to this on the 212th of the same month, a portion of the Sikh Force had been transferred to the Central Station, and the coolies who were then at the Central Station had objected to clean the Indians' quarters; - they did not think it was their business to do so; and there was some trouble with the Sikhs, - they complained of their quarters not being cleaned out.  On one occasion I told the Sikh sergeant hat I was not the barrack officer.  He went, and afterwards came back, and told me that the barrack sergeant, Sergeant Millne, had told him he had better clean his quarters himself.  Sergeant Millne complained to me that the Indian sergeant had been very insolent to him.  I asked him the cause of the dispute, and he said it was in consequence of the Sikh quarters not being cleaned out. I told Sergeant Millne that the Indians were as much entitled to have their quarters cleaned out as any other members of this Force, and as barrack sergeant it was his duty to see that this was done.
  I asked you why you brought him from Carter Road? - For the purpose of cleaning the Indians' quarters.  I imagined that he would not have any objection because he had been employed in that work at Carter Road, for more than six months.
  He left Carter Road you say on March 17th? - The 17th or 18th March.
  Was he entitled to pay at the rate he was receiving in Carter Road from the 1st to the 17th or 18th March? - He was.
  What work did he do when he came back to the Central Station? - I sent for the two other coolies and himself into my office and I got the interpreter to explain that they were to divide the work as equally as possible between the three of them.
  How about your own quarters?
  Previously to this, one of the old coolies at the Central Station always cleaned out my quarters every day.  They were in the habit of going sometimes at one hour, sometimes another, which was a little inconvenient.  When this man was taken from the Carter Road Station I told him it would be part of his duty to come to my quarters every morning as nearly as possible at a fixed time, at the same time telling the other coolies that it would be necessary for them to do as they had done previously.
  Has that man remained at the Central Station ever since? - He has.
  Who paid the man for the month of March? - I did.
  You generally pay the men? - Not generally.  I always pay the Hongkew division and the Carter Road, but as a rule the Superintendent pays the Central and Louza; but that month I paid the whole.
  On this occasion did Wo San-yuen apply for is wages? - He did.
  Was his name on the pay sheet? - It was not.
  Should it have been there? - It should have been.
  Did you ask why it was not there? - I sent for Sergeant Millne, who usually makes out the pay sheet, and asked him how it was the name had been omitted.  He said he was under the impression that the man had been discharged, and that was the reason he gave for the name not being on the sheet.
  Carry your mind carefully back and say whether he told you he had received orders from anybody? - He made no use of any such language to me.
  You are quite certain? - Quite certain.  I then remarked to him that it was very strange that the man could be at the Station for the greater part of a month without his knowing anything about it, and did not say very much for him as a Barrack Sergeant.  The he left the office. This conversation took place in the Captain's office while I was paying the men.
  In accordance with your orders this coolie goes to your quarters in the morning? - He does.
  Have you seen him cleaning the Sikhs' quarters? - I have frequently, and doing other work about the Station.
  Do you give him anything extra for the work he does for you?  Yes.
  In regard to Li Ah-pao, when was he first taken on at the Central Station? - In October 1884.
  In what capacity? - I believe he was taken on as a lamp trimer.
  Do you know how long he remained there? - From October till the 17th or 18th of March, when he was sent by my orders to Carter Road Station as a station coolie.
  Has he remained at the Carter Road Station ever since? - He has.
  And what are his wages at the Carter Road as compared with his wages at the Central? - At the Central $5, at Carter Road $6.
Cross-examined:-
  Mr. Drummond - When you arrived here did Mr. Mack take you round and endeavor to assist you to become familiar with the place in any way?
  Witness - Well, I walked round the town with Mr. Mack for a week or two after my arrival here.
  Did he show any desire to make you acquainted with Shanghai? - Yes. He told me a great deal about the place and the people.
  When did you first arrive? - On the 9th January, 1884.
  And did you take up the position at first of Chief Inspector? - I was Acting Chief Inspector, performing the duties, but simply holding the acting appointment.
 That is, ranking next to the Captain Superintendent? - Yes.
  During that time, until September, 1884, did you have any difference with Mr. Mack of any kind? - The only difference is what I have referred to.
  That was the first time? - Yes.
  During that time you were his superior officer, were you not? - I consider that I was.
  Had you more or less to do with him in the course of business at that time? - Yes.
  When tis man Sow-king reported this story to you, what was the first thing you did to satisfy yourself whether there was any truth in it? - At first I was almost inclined to believe that no man would give such a mean order, but from putting matters together, and from what Mr. Mack had previously told me about what had been done before, I considered there might be truth in it, and I asked the man himself in a straight-forward manner if it was true.
  Did you talk to him in pidgin English at all? - Yes, but principally through the interpreter.  He talked to me in Pidgin English, as I asked him to give me as nearly as possible Mr. Mack's language.
  Was this matter investigated by Captain McEuen afterwards? - It was.
  Do you know as a matter of fact whether a foreigner in the Force could squeeze anything from a native constable or not? - I do not think they would be very likely to do so.
  Or from any native that might be taken on as constable. Do you think a foreigner could do such a thing if he tried? - I do not think it likely, though I was told by Mr. Mack it was done.
  Do you think it possible? What pay do they get? - $10 a month.
  Do you think any foreigner could squeeze or unfairly get any of that from a native constable? - Well, I do not think he could.
  Well, this matter was gone into, you say, afterwards by Capt. McEuen? - Yes.
  Capt. McEuen has given in his memo a statement that he thought you misunderstood, or that the orders given by Mr. Mack had been misunderstood altogether? - He said so in is statement.
  Then he must have felt satisfied from this investigation, of the truth of what Mr. Mack had told him? - I cannot say what he felt.
  Did Mr. Mack tell him at the investigation he same thing as he had previously told you when you called on him for an explanation? - No.
  Did he tell you the same or a different story altogether? - Captain McEuen did not tell me in the office what he afterwards wrote, because the letter was written after Sow-king, myself and Mr. Mack had been in the Captain's office.
  That letter was the result of the inquiry - I suppose so.
  Before that you had enquired directly of Mr. Mack whether he had done this, and he had given his statement that he had done nothing of the kind, and had explained how the thing had arisen? - He gave me no explanation.  He simply sent a small slip of paper that he had given no such instructions and he considered he had only done his duty.
  Did he not go to see you? - That was in consequence of Capt. McEuen telling him to make it up with me.  He tried to make an explanation, but it was a very wild one.  He laughed and tried to make a joke of it, but I said it was no laughing matter.
  How did this "wild" story that he told you differ from the story which he told Captain McEuen, and which satisfied him? - The wild story he told me was not all in accordance with what Capt. McEuen wrote.  
  Was it in accordance with the story he told Capt. McEuen at the investigation which I imagine resulted in this memo? - It was not by any means.
  In what way did it differ? - He came into my office stating that he had been told to do so by Capt. McEuen with respect to the enquiries the detectives had been making.  He said he was surprised that I should think him guilty of such a mean thing, and if I would listen to him he would explain it.  He went on in jesting way and tried to explain it, beginning with January and ending with December.  I could not make head or tail of it.
  All that you can remember of this explanation is that it was from January to December? - Well, I could not understand it.
  Did you draw attention at the investigation to the fact that Mr. Mack's explanation was entirely different from the one which he had made before? - I mentioned that the story he was telling was very much better polished than the one he told me before.
  Did you say that it differed altogether? - I did afterwards, after I saw that memo.  At the time I did not, because it was Mack who was questioned principally, and not me.
  The explanation was satisfactory to Mr. McEuen, but not to you I suppose? - I do not know that it was satisfactory to him.
  Were you satisfied with it yourself? - No, I was not, and I wrote and told Capt. McEuen.
  Have you believed ever since that he did set people to watch you to see if you got "squeeze" from the native constable? -I have, and I do still.
  And consequently you have had no good will for him? - I have not been on speaking terms with him. If I had any order to give it him I gave it in writing.  I have not spoken to him from that day to this.
  And have you had the impression on your mind ever since? - I have still.
  Do you believe that such a thing as to squeeze a native constable had ever been attempted or ever been done by any foreigner in the Police Force? - I have only Mr. Mack's authority for it.
  But do you believe it has been done? - I do not believe t.
  Now you say that the only reason you can imagine why he should have done such a thing was that you had refused to employ some one whom he had recommended? When was that? - On the 25th April.
  Do you know any reason why Mr. Mack should have desired that this man should be employed in the Police Force? - He gave me a reason.
  A special reason why he desired this man should be employed in the Police Force? - Yes. That was when I had told Mack that I had been informed that he was a bad character,
  He gave you a reason why he wished the man to be put into the Police Force? - Yes.  The same day I objected to give the man an appointment, Mack came into my office afterwards and asked me who my informant was.  I said I would not tell him; if the Superintendent asked me the question I would answer it, but I would not answer him.  He then said, "It is that G-d-Dutchman," meaning Inspector Kluth.
  You understood him at once to mean Kluth by that name? Well, I had heard Mr. Mack use the term before, and I know he had seen Kluth with me that morning.  Besides, he is the only German Inspector in the Force as far as I know.  Then he told me his reason for wanting to get the man into the Police Force was that he had employed him as an informer, and this man had got him several good cases.  He mentioned one in particular, the telegraph case.  There was no allowance made to him for payment of this man, and he wanted to get him into the police with a view of having him as a detective.  Previous to this, an order ad been given by Captain McEuen -a verbal one - that in future all promotions to the rank of detective should be made from the ranks.  Before that, it was not so; outside men were taken right away as detectives.  But this order was given and that was the explanation that Mr. Mack gave me; the man had to be taken on as constable before he could be made detective.
  What proof did you get that the man had been a bad character? - The records of the office.
  Did you examine into the matter and get sufficient proofs that the man was a bad character? - The writer in the office who writes down the men's names in Chinese told me that the man had been previously dismissed from the Force, and he produced the book with the record of the dismissal.  He was dismissed for fighting and creating a disturbance in a tea house.
  That was when he was off duty? - It does not say.
  Are you sure of that? - I do not think it does, but it is in Chinese, and I have to rely on what they tell me.
  On that you considered he was such a bad character that he should not be taken into the Force again? - Certainly.
  From what you say I should understand that Mr. Mack and Inspector Kluth are on bad terms> - Not so far as I know.  I know very little about their relations.
Bu judging from the observation you made just now? - Well, no; I do not understand that they are on bad terms.
  As a matter of fact do you know they have been very good fends throughout? -I do not know as a matter of fact that they have been good or bad fiends.
  Now with regard to the coolie who was employed at the Central Station and was then sent to the Carter Road Station. I understand that change was made by your direction? -It was with the sanction of the Superintendent.
  Was any change made early in February? - Not to my knowledge.  I do not think there was.
  Do you know personally all the coolies and Chinese connected with the Central Station who are employed there? - I do.
  You live close by? - I live at the Central Station.
  If Mr. Millne and the head interpreter at the Central Station say that the man was sent about the 5th or 6th  February to the Carter Road Station they are both wrong? -I am certain ty are.  The pay sheets will show they were wrong.
  The pay sheets may show curious things sometimes; they are not absolute proof.  I want to know of your own knowledge? - I know it of my own knowledge.
  Can you give me any reason why they should be so mistaken, one being Chinese and the other being the Barrack Sergeant at the Central Station? - Can you give me any reason why they should both be so mistaken, although they both agree on the fact? - I can give no reason, only that Mr. Mack fixes his date from February instead of March.
  Am I to understand that you think Sergeant Millne and the Interpreter were in collusion with Mack in bringing up this case? - I think it is quite possible.
  Are you so much in the Central Station every day during office hours as they are? - I should think much more than Sergeant Millne, and the Interpreter does not live at the Station.
  But they are both there t eater part of the day? They cannot be mistaken in stating that? They must be deliberately stating what is untrue.  Is that not so? - If that is their statement.
  Do you know whether Capt. McEuen gave ay orders to Sergt. Mllne to strike the lamp-trimmer off the pay sheet for t month of March? - I do not.
  Did you tell Sergt. Millne to place his name on again for the month of April? - I did.
  And his name continued on the pay sheet for April and May, and has done ever since? - Yes.
  And he had drawn pay for each month? - Yes.
  When you told that to Sergt. Millne was it in the Central Office? - It was.  He was sitting at his own desk making up the pay sheets for that month.
  Did he first mention it, or did you? - I did.
  What did you tell him? - I told him not to omit the coolie's name from the pay sheet.
  Did you refer to the lamp-trimmer? - I did not.
  The coolie was a lamp-trimmer, was he not? - No.
  Was he the man who was supposed to do the lamp-trimmer's duty? - After the transfer took place, the duties were so rearranged that the office of the lamp-trimmer was done away with, and the lamps were cleaned by the whole lot of them.
When did that begin? - At the latter end of March, because the man did not come from Carter Road till the 17th or 18th March.
  Up to that time there had been a lamp-trimmer? - Yes, a man who did nothing else but go in the morning and clean the lamps, and as soon as that was done he walked away.
  Since then there has been no special lamp-trimmer? - No.
  Is there any entry of the pay sheet for a lamp trimmer for April and May? - Well, I have not taken particular notice of the way it is put on the pay sheet.
  If there is an entry 'lamp-trimmer' and a salary against it, to whom would that be paid? - To one of the three coolies.
  Did you make any observation to Sergeant Millne when you told him to put that coolie back on the pay sheet? - I did not.  I did not consider it was my duty to do so.  I was his superior officer.  I give him his orders.
  And it was is duty to obey without any question? - Yes; I had my orders from the Superintendent.
  When did the Superintendent give you that order? - On the same afternoon that I paid the men.  I drew his attention to the fact that one man's name had not been put on the pay sheet; he asked me the reason, and I gave Millne's explanation.  He said, "Well, see it is not omitted next month." And the next month I went to Millne and told him, not to omit the coolie whose name had been omitted last month.
  When you went to Capt. McEuen did you ask him to allow the coolie to come to your home, or to allow you a coolie? - No. The coolies had been doing the work ever since I had been in the house. Sometimes one came, sometimes another.
  You never had permission? - I considered so far as the coolies did the work for me I was entitled to it.
  Did you ever ask permission from Capt. McEuen, to have a coolle? - No; I never had a coolie.
  You have had the services of one or two? - A portion of their services.
  And this you consider you are entitled to without the sanction of the Capt. Superintendent? - Yes.
  Did you ever apply to the Secretary of the Council for one? - I never dd.
  Did you say you were allowed one in Hongkong? - Ah! I had some conversation with him about a coolie.  I had occasion to go to the Secretary's office about something, and we had some conversation, making comparisons between Shanghai and Hongkong.  Amongst the things we compared the Police Stations.  I spoke of the way the work was done here and there, and of the allowances given there and here.  For instance, I mentioned that in Hongkong Station coolies were supplied; in Shanghai I did not get a coolie.  He said, "Oh, that is a trifle.  I am sure you have only got to ask for one and Capt. McEuen will get you one." I said, "I do not think he would; he is not one of that sort."  That is all that occurred, no more ad no less.
  When was it that that happened? - I think it would be twelve months last August.
  Evidently Mt. Thorburn rather understood that you wished to have a coolie? - I do not think he could have come to such a conclusion.
  You do not think he could have thought that you applied for one? - I did not apply for one.
  Do you know whether Mr. Mack has ever made efforts to get the difference between you and him settled by the Watch Committee? - I do not.
  Did that never come to your knowledge? - It never did; I wanted to have it settled.
  It gave rise to trouble in some cases, such as McFarlane's case? - Not that I know of.
  Did it never give rise to any difficulty with regard to carrying out the work? - I admit it was very awkward, but I never allowed personal feeling to interfere between me and my duties; when I had any orders to give him I put them in writing.
  Did you endeavour to get Capt. McEuen to bring this matter before the Watch Committee? -Nothing further than writing to him.  Capt. McEuen repeatedly asked me to arrange matters if possible, and I told him I would not, in the way he wished me to do it.
  What was that? - He wanted me to become friends with Mack, and to let this matter slip by as if nothing had taken place.  I told him I would not do so, because I considered I had been seriously injured and had not had a fair chance of an explanation of the whole matter.
  Then you considered yourself aggrieved by his decision? - I did.  I did not consider it a proper way for the matter to be decided.
  Did you know whether it is a common circumstance for Chinese to be making inquiries with regard to foreign members of the Force - not in regard to yourself? - I do not.
  Do you know whether that has been the case with regard to Mr. Mack himself - Chinese making inquiries about him? - I was not aware of it.
  You paid something I think you said to one of these coolies who looked after your quarters more or less? How much was that? - I gave him $1 per month.
  Is that Sang-yuen? - Yes.
  That is in addition to the pay he gets from the Council? - Yes.
  Do you know what his pay is from the council? - $5 per month.  One more makes his pay up to the same amount, as it was in the Carter Road Station.
  If the head interpreter says he was in your house all the time would that be true? - It would not.
  By Mr. Alabaster - Did that colie get paid for March? - Yes.
  Who paid him? - I did.
  Personally? - Yes.
  His whole wages? - Yes.
  Re-examined by Mr. Robinson:-
  Before you directed Millne to reinstate the coolie on the pay sheet had you previously consulted the Captain Superintendent and obtained his sanction? - I had, Sir.
  Ever since you have been here the coolies have been in the habit of doing work in your quarters? - Every day, either in the morning or the afternoon.
  Do you know anything about the Volunteer rifle shooting? - Yes.
  There are months for class-firing are there not, during which Sergt. Millne's time would be much occupied with this part of his duties? - Yes.
  What time of the year would this be? - In the spring and autumn.
  Sow-King, a native detective, was next called and examined by Mr. Robinson.  His evidence was given in pidgin English, and he said he had been 4 or 5 years in the Force, and had been promoted to the rank of a detective in the month of March last year. A few months ago he was sent to Tientsin by Inspector Mack, and returned on the fifth day of the fifth moon of the Chinese year; he did not know the English date.  Soon after his return Inspector Mack told him to make enquiries as to whether Tang and Yuen, the Chinese writer and interpreter at the Central Station, and Mr. Cameron received money from the men who were appointed constables in the native Force.  He made enquiries, and the native policemen to whom he spoke told him they had not paid anything.  He reported this to Mack, and gave him a small piece of paper with the numbers of the policemen of whom he had made enquiries.  Some time after that, he was sent for to the Superintendent's office, where he saw Capt. McEuen, Inspector Cameron and Inspector Mack. Capt. McEuen asked him if Inspector Mack had instructed him to inquire of the Chinese constables whether they had to pay any money to Yang and Yuen and Mr. Cameron on being appointed, and he said Mack did tell him to do so.  Capt. McEuen did not ask him anything else,
  Witness, in answer to Mr. Drummond, said he had also given Inspector Mack the number of one native constable who was a loafer and had been cangued for a month.
  Mr. Drummond - Did Mr. Mack tell you to enquire about some men in the office whether they catchee any money? - Yes.
  Did he point to the office? - Yes.
  He ask you to make inquire if those men in the office catchee money? - Yes.
 He talkee you those men in the office? - Yes.
  Did he point with his fingers? - Yes.
  No talkee any name? - Yes, have talkee.
  At the same time? - Yes, Yang and Yuen.
  When Mr. Mack tell you that, what thing you thinkee he mean? - Any loafer man wantchee go inside Police Fore pay that Yang and Yuen money.
  Suppose they pay hose two men Yang and Yuen money some time, can catchee chance go inside Police Force? -- Yes. Mr. Mack talkee so fashion wantchee my find out.
  Any man have do so fashion before time, you savee? - No, my no savee.
  You have hear any time any man can pay one foreign man money, can catchee chance go inside Police Force? - No. Some outside men inside opium shop talkee Yuen go inside smoke opium, other man makee pay s'pose he wantchee catchee chance.
  You never hear any man talkee foreign man do so fashion? - No.
  Did you ask about Yuen and Yang? - My have talkee some policemen.
  How many? - Three or four.
  By Mr. Robinson - You have talkee Mr. Mack that time he talkee you make that enquire have mentioned Yang and Yuen names.  Have talkee Mr. Cameron's name? - Yes, Mr. Cameron's name have talkee.
  The Court then adjourned till two o'clock on the following afternoon.\
3rd September.
  The hearing was resumed at two o'clock this afternoon.
  Mr. Holliday was called as a witness for the defence.
  Mr. Robinson - Were you Chairman of the Watch Committee in the beginning of 1884?
  Witness = Yes.
  Did the Captain Superintendent of Police have an interview with you about the Police Force, in connection with the Watch Committee, about that time? - I was constantly in communication with him every day.
  But you had an interview with him respecting the making of reports to the Watch Committee .I wish to know whether you had a conversation with him on that subject?- You mean did I discuss the subject with him?
  Yes. - Certainly.
  Will you kindly state if you remember what he said to you? -  I do not quite understand you - on what subject?
  He came to discuss with you the subject of reports being made direct to the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  And did he specially request you to speak to Mr. Mack? - Yes.
  And to any other member of the Force? - There was no other.  Mr. Mack was the only person instructed to make reports at that time for special reasons.
  He was entitled to make reports? - Yes.
  How? or why? - From special instructions from the Watch Committee.
  Which had over-ridden those of the Regulations and the Superintendent of Police? - No, they were apart altogether from those.  He was instructed to continue his work in the Force, but at the same time he had special duty allotted to him as regards his duties to the Watch Committee which had to be carried out.
  And were those duties making enquiries about members of the old Force? - Yes.
  And were those reports made direct to the Watch Committee? - Yes. That means this, that when the Committee went into the subject of the Police question there were many things that were very unsatisfactory, the most important thing of which was that among the native employees, there undoubtedly existed bribery squeezing and things of that kind.  When we took over the matter and proceeded to make changes, we decided that we should use every effort to put an end to this state of things amongst the Chinese, and Mr. Mack, in whom we have every reason to place confidence, was instructed as special duty, apart from his police duties, that he was to go thoroughly into the matter of corruption amongst the Chinese and discover everything he could in connection with bribery, and all cases he found were to be communicated either to myself or to some member of the Watch Committee, and this was done with Mr. Penfold's knowledge, and he knew that Mr. Mack was going to be employed in this way.
  Who told Mr. Penfold? - I told him.
  Was Mr. Mack told not to tell Mr. Penfold anything about it? - I think the instructions were for him to go direct to the Watch Committee.  The whole thing was explained to Mr. Penfold, but he was so lukewarm about it that I said 'we will take the thing over ourselves and try to discover this thing,' and he said 'all right if you can discover anything it will be better for the force and better for everyone.'
My question was hat when Mack got his instructions, was he not told not to tell Mr. Penfold? - I cannot say, but I know he had to report to the Watch Committee.
 Can you state positively that you never told Mr. Mack, or that no member of the Watch Committee told him, that he was not to tell Mr. Penfold about this business, or something to that effect? - I cannot swear, but I think I is very probable that Mack was told that he was to bring his reports direct to the Watch Committee.
 You are not prepared to swear that he was not told to keep it from Mr. Penfold? - No. I cannot swear, I cannot remember what took place two years ago.
  The matter has been brought continually to your mind and recollection, and two years is not a long time. - I cannot tell you, if Mr. Mack had said to me 'shall I report to Mr. Penfold,' I have no doubt he would have been told, or I should have told him, that he was to continue and report to me or some other member of the committee.  The intention of the Watch Committee was that the reports should come direct to them.
  And that Mr. Penfold should not be told about it? - Mr. Penfold was not told about it, but he was aware that Mr. Mack was specially employed to make these enquiries.
  Was Mack told he was to go direct to the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  You told us that you told Capt. McEuen that you would inform Mr. Mack that he was to make his reports direct t the Capt. Superintendent, and not to the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  When did you do that? - Capt. McEuen came up here in February, in March he worked with Mr. Penfold, and I should think it was about May.
  Did you do it in writing or did you send to him to come to your house? - I cannot positively state how he came roumd to me. I know I spoke to apt. McEuen about speaking to him on the subject, and when we were taking about the matter one day I asked him to send Mack round.  At that time I intended to retire in June, but Mr. Keswick's health gave way and I delayed it.  I told Capt. McEuen to send Mack round and I would tell him what he wanted me to say to him.  It was just about May, before he took over charge of the entire force.
  Did Capt. McEuen ever give you any reasons why he should wish you to tell Mack this?  No, not at all.  He always spoke in the highest terms of Mack.
  Then why should he be so anxious for you to speak to Mack? - He wanted to have everything on a proper footing when he took over the Force.
  Did he tell you that he had spoken to Mack on the subject himself? - Never, not that I recollect.
  Trouble between himself and Mack had not given rise to this anxiety? - No, it was before he had taken charge of the Force.
  And he came to you, the Capt. Superintendent, to give an order to an officer of the Force? Because I was Chairman and there was an order that his reports were to come to the Watch Committee and that order had to be wiped off.
  And the watch Committee is superior to the Capt. Superintendent of Police?  Yes.
  They are his employees ae they not? - Yes, they are a section of the council.
  Do you remember what you told Mr. Mack? - I remember I had a long conversation with him on a variety of matters; I told him that I was preparing to retire from the work altogether, and as far as I remember, I said to him, 'Now, Mack, I do not want you to come here any more, you must make all your reports to the Captain Superintendent who is a man who has the entire confidence of the Council.'
  And that came from you after a long conversation on a variety of subjects? -  Yes.
  And did he make his reports afterwards direct to the Captain Superintendent? - He did not come to me.
  Now, did you tell him, and please be careful, not to come and see you at all, or not to come and make his reports to you? - I really cannot recollect that; I know what I meant to convey.
  What was it? -I meant he was not to go to the watch Committee any more, that was my intention.
  But did you convey hat to him in so many words? - It would be very strange if I did not when it was my intention do so.
  Now, can you swear that you told him in so many words that that was your meaning? You had a long conversation with him and told him a great many things, and the fact that you were leaving the council and that you had ceased acting on the Watch Committee? - I can only tell you what was my intention, I cannot tell you the exact words I used.
  You cannot say you used words to express to him the distinct meaning that he was not to go to you again and report, but that he was to report direct to the Captain Superintendent? - He had made all the reports to me before, and when I said he had not to come to me again I thought that was sufficient.
  And that was all you told him? - It is impossible for me to say now.
  Had he ever come to you to make reports against the previous Superintendent of Police or against any of the old European officers of the Force? - That is a very comprehensive question, and it is difficult for me to answer it off hand.  He may have expressed an opinion.  He may have said that so-and-so was not up to his work, but I do not remember his deliberately making a charge against any one.
  He never made reports to you against the characters of the European members of the Police Force? - No.
  Then any information which you may have obtained as regards the character of Mr. Penfold, Mr. Stripling, or any other of the European members of the Police Force was obtained from other sources? -From many sources.  What Mr. Mack may have said confirmed my ideas.  I may say that no charge of a delicate nature was ever made against any of the foreign officers by anyone, but I heard a great deal from outside, which was all more or less "talkee, talkee."
  You have never heard of a charge against Mr. Penfold? - I heard a great deal of "talkee, talkee," but I never heard of a charge against him.
  Then so far as you are concerned and the Watch Committee too, no charge was ever made against the old European officers of the Force? Then can you explain why there was a cessation of confidence as regards the old officers of the Force? - That is a question which I must decline to answer.
  Why; it is the natural result of your own observation?  Has anything been done or said that has shaken the confidence of the Watch Committee in the old officers of the Force? - I cannot answer.
  You are unable to state anything that has taken place which would justify a cessation of confidence by the members of the Watch Committee or the Council? - I could say a great deal.  The Committee was satisfied.
  But I understand you to say that nothing has been said by anyone except outsiders against the characters of the old officers of the Force? Is that so? - It is so, and I have stated it before.  I heard all kinds of things about them, "talkee, talkee,"as I said just now, but nothing was said that could be proved.
  And as a matter of fact, Mr. Penfold was practically under suspension, or his power reduced, from April 1883? - No, not quite that.
  Not when reports were taken out of his hands and made to the Watch Committee? - It was because Mr. Penfold declined to work himself.  We were satisfied that he would not believe what we had satisfied ourselves about, and we decided to take the course we did.
  Then so far as the old officers of the Force are concerned - the Europeans I mean - there has been no great Augean stables to cleanse; that has been an imagination of the public only? - I think it very much wanted cleaning.
  Mr. Drummond - Now, has any single individual ever told you anything that was worth listening to?
  Mr. Holliday - Are you speaking of the Force in a general way?
  Mr. Drummond - I am speaking of the Force as it stood when you took it in hand.
  Mr. Holliday - Are you asking for the general information of the public, to satisfy your own curiosity, or as the lawyer for Mr. Penfold, for your questions have nothing to do with Mack's case?
  Mr. Drummond - I am not here to be questioned by you.  If you would confine yourself to answering my questions, and not make a speech every time, we should get on much quicker.
  Mr. Robinson objected to Mr. Drummond entering into these particulars on the ground that they were irrelevant.
  Mr. Drummond - My questions have been very brief.  His answers have been speeches, and he has gone into matters I did not ask him to.  However, I am satisfied, I don't want him to go further; I have got quite as much information from him as is necessary for my purpose.  The principal point I wanted to get is - What was actually told to Mr. Mack and when it was told him?
  Witness - It was told to him, I believe, in May, and what I intended to tell him was that his future reports were to be made to the Captain Superintendent, and not to me or to the Watch Committee.
  Did you tell Captain McEuen what you had said to Mack? - Yes.
  When did you tell him? - I think I told him the very same day.
  You do not know whether Capt. McEuen ever spoke to Mack on the subject? - After Captain McEuen took over charge I had little to do with them.  I avoided the Police as much as possible.
  He did not come to you for advice? - He came to me when I was Chairman of the Watch Committee, and I saw him once or twice afterwards.  He often came to me, but not on police matters.
  Were those instructions of which you speak confined exclusively to the Chinese members of the Police Force, or was Mack to make enquiries generally with regard to the conduct of all the members of the Force? - Mr. Mack was instructed to specially devote his energy to unravelling the question of the Chinese, and that was his main order.  After we had finished what we were on, and Mack had gone away, I thought about the instructions we had given.  He was instructed to report everything and everyone he heard to the Watch Committee. We had fair information that there was an amount of antagonism to be experienced in the changes that we were about to make, and he was to inform us of anything he heard or saw that was likely to be of use to the Watch Committee.  That was at Mr. Kalb's house.  After Mr. Mack had gone, we talked it over, and we said we thought we had gone perhaps a little too freely in the matter, and I think it was the next day I sent for Mack, and I said to him with reference to this thing - I cannot remember the exact words, but so far as I do recollect I said to him 'your instructions are to report everything to us, whether it is about the highest or the lowest, from the Superintendent down to the coolies; but there is one thing I wish you to understand, and it is that in carrying out these instructions, there must be no spy pidgin, we do not want any of that kind of pidgin.'
R-examined:-
  Mr. Robinson - You have stated that there was only one person instructed to report to the Watch Committee; who was hat person?
  Witness - Mr. Mack.
  You have told us that Capt. McEuen was to be put in the same position as Mr. Penfold before the Watch Committee took charge, with this difference that Capt. McEuen was requested to consult the Watch Committee more than Mr. Penfold had been in the habit of doing.  Did hat apply only to Capt. McEuen, or was it for others to go and consult the Watch Committee? - No, it was only for the Capt. Superintendent to consult the Watch Committee.
  You told my friend that you could not swear hat Mack was told not to tell Mr. Penfold the results of his inquiries. So far as your recollection goes, was there any objection after reporting direct to you to telling Mr. Penfold what he had done? - The Watch Committee had taken the matter in hand and I should say there was a decided objection.
  Then you do not consider he was entitled to go to Mr. Penfold after reporting to you? - No, Mr. Mack was engaged on special duty.
  Now have you any doubt in your own mind that you saw Mack at once in pursuance of Capt. McEuen's request to instruct him not to report to the Committee.  Have you any doubt that you made him understand that his reports were to be made direct to the Superintendent? - No, that was my intention.  
  Now supposing that after you had so told Mack he had come to you wishing to make a report to you, what would you have told him to do? - I should have told him at once to go to the Captain Superintendent.
  Mr. J. J. KESWICK was the next called.
  M. Robinson - You are the chairman of the Municipal Council for the present year?
  Witness - Yes.
  Did the plaintiff, Mr. Mack, call upon you on June 8th of this year? - Yes.  He called upon me, but I am not sure as to the date.
  Will you please tell us what he said to you? - M. Mack came to see me in the evening between 7 and 8 o'clock and he said to me 'I am very sorry, but I have a serious charge to make against some one.' I said 'Indeed, I am sorry to hear it.'  I asked him what it was, and he said it was a charge of embezzlement and fraud and falsification of accounts.  I said 'That is very serious, against whom is the charge?' And Mack said 'It is against Chief Inspector Cameron.'  I thereupon said 'I suppose you have reported the mater to Captain McEuen?' and Inspector Mack said 'Oh, no, I have not done that there is no use in my doing that because Capt. McEuen won't listen to anything against Inspector Camron.'  That struck me as rather curious, and I thought I had better not dwell on the matter further, and I said 'you had better go and see the Chairman of the Watch Committee, Mr. Mackenzie.' Thereupon Mr. Mack left my office and the matter terminated for that night.
  Now, do you remember an ordinary general meeting of h council held on the 15th June? - Yes, I remember the meeting held immediately thereafter, that is, the meeting after I saw Mack. I cannot commit myself to dates.
  And the Chairman of the Watch Committee bringing up these charges before the council? - He informed the Council of Mack's charges.
  And what instructions did the Council give? - The Council gave instructions that the Captain Superintendent should be informed of it and requested to enquire.
  After that meeting at which this direction was given by the Council, do you remember a meeting of the Watch Committee at which you were also present? - Yes, I was invited to be present at the meeting of the Watch Committee.
  What was the principal business of that meeting? - To consider the case of Mack as it was called.
  Did the Committee on that occasion go as carefully as it could, or as it thought proper into the case of Mack? - The Committee were fully satisfied as to the facts of the case.
  Of whom did they take this evidence? - They first heard the statement of Capt. Superintendent McEuen and subsequently heard the statement of Mr. Mack.
  Did they have anyone after Mack - Mr. Cameron made a few remarks.
  He was called in? - Yes.
  It was not a case of examination, so to speak? - No.
  Was Mack given an opportunity to speak? - Mack was allowed to make a statement, which he made, and that statement was one which in no way appeared to effect the opinion which the Watch Committee had at that meeting formed with regard to what they had heard in reference to Mack's case.
  What was the substance of Mack's statement? - He said that he had a charge of embezzlement and fraud to bring against Inspector Cameron.
  In respect of what? - Falsifying pay sheets.
  And what else? Did he refer to nothing else but the pay sheets? -I do not remember at the moment that he said anything, he said that it was embezzlement of money for the employment of a coolie who was put on the pay sheets improperly.
  Did you hear anything at that meeting about that coolie? - I heard that the coolie was put on the pay sheet by Capt. McEuen's authority.
  Who said so? - He said so himself.
  Did Mr. Mack and you allude to the fact of its being his duty to go to Capt. McEuen? - I think I asked Mack whether he considered it to be his duty to go, and I think he said 'no.' I am under the impression also that I said to him 'When did this first begin, this complaint of embezzlement, and did you conceive it to be your duty to enquire into such things and not inform your superior?' And I think he said 'no' then too.
  He said it was not his duty then? - Yes, apparently.
  Did he mention the date at which this fancied embezzlement came to his notice? - Yes, from February till the end of May.
  Was any remark made upon that by the Committee? - A remark was made by me.  I said 'why did you no bring his to the notice of the Capt. Superintendent? If you had done so, and it is a case of embezzlement and fraud, only one or two dollars would have been involved, whereas now it amounts to $14.'
  Did Mack inform the Committee that he had any witnesses ready to give evidence? - Yes.
  And what did the Committee say to him? - That it was unnecessary to hear witnesses.
  Why? - Because, it being perfectly manifest that there was nothing wrong in consequence of the man being put on the pay-sheet by the authority of Captain McEuen, it was useless to bring witnesses to prove that something that was right was wrong.  Capt. McEuen was quite within his authority in putting the man on the pay-sheet.
  What conclusion did the Committee come to? - That Inspector Mack was moved by malice and animus against Inspector Cameron, which I may mention was very visible from his demeanour during the time that they were both in the Board Room before the Watch Committee.
  Will you tell the Court how did he manifest it? - There was a manifest hatred on t part of Inspector Mack, because I remember asking him whether he had any animus against Inspector Cameron, and he said in a rather peculiar way 'No, but we are not on speaking terms,' which appeared to me to be a contradiction, and then in making statements referring to Inspector Cameron, he would refer to him in a very contemptuous way, such as, 'This man' and 'That man,' with a general air which is not consistent with deference to a superior officer.
  What was the final decision of the Committee? - That it was a false charge brought by Mack against Inspector Cameron trough malice.
  And were any directions given in reference to that? - That he should be suspended.
  But he was suspended then? - Oh yes. That he should be dismissed.
  Was that conclusion reported to the next general meeting of the Council? - Yes.
  And did they discuss the matter - Yes.
  And did they agree or disagree? - They fully concurred, and the instructions were given to the Secretary that he should be dismissed the Force.
Cross-examined:-
  Mr. Drummond - In answer to my friend Mr. Robinson, you commenced by describing an interview between Mr. Mack and yourself.  Do you think you have described it pretty correctly with regard to the incidents?
  Witness - I am confident that it is pretty correct.
  You say it occurred between seven and eight o'clock in the evening.  Are you sure it did not occur between eleven and twelve o'clock in the morning, that you told Mack you had a meeting of the Consular Body to attend in the afternoon, that you would not be able to attend he Watch Committee to be held in the evening, and that he had better go and see Mr. Mackenzie? - It is an absolute fable.  I only saw Mr. Mack once, and it was in the evening.
  And where? - In my office.
  And you said it was between seven and eight o'clock in the evening? - I feel quite positive it was.
  Mr. Mack's statement is that he saw you between eleven and twelve o'clock, and that you told him what I have just said? - It is a mistake.  It was between seven and eight o'clock in the evening that I saw him and I told him to go to Mr. Mackenzie.  I only had one interview with him, and it is not likely that I should be mistaken.
  Did you give him any reason why he should go and see Mr. Mackenzie? - No, not that I remember.
  Are you aware that he went to Mr. Mackenzie? - I do not know when he went, but I believe he did go; at least I have been told so.
  And after seeing you? - I do not know when he went.  I understand from what I have heard that he went.
  And he went in consequence of what you told him? - I do not know.  I cannot say that.  I told him he had better go and see Mr. Mackenzie, as he was Chairman of the Watch Committee.
  Mr. Drummond - I presume Mr. Mackenzie is going to be called, Mr. Robinson?
  Mr. Robinson - Yes.
  Mr. Drummond - You were invited to be present at the meeting of the Watch Committee, when they enquired into this matter?
  Witness - Yes.
  That is not a usual thing is it? Was it by special arrangement that you were present? - The Chairman of the Council is ex officio member of all the Committees, but on that occasion I was specially invited to be present, by a note sent stating that the committee wished me to be present.
  Was that from the Secretary of the council or form the Chairman of the Committee? - My impression is that it was from the Chairman, but I am not positive.  It was from the Chairman, I feel sure.
  Do you know what time that meeting took place? I could not state the hour, but it is my impression that it was five o'clock in the afternoon.
  Who was present at that meeting when the proceedings commenced? - Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Adler, Mr. Henningsen, Captain McEuen and myself.  At the moment I do not remember that there as another.
  Was the Secretary of the Council present? - Yes.
  At the time that Mr. Mack called upon you first did he ask you whether Captain McEuen could give an officer of the Force a servant without a Board order? - He never referred to it.
  Are you quite sure? - Quite certain.
  Well, then you commenced the sitting.  Was the meeting for the sole purpose of going into this case? - Yes, we read the minutes of the last meeting, and then went into the consideration of this case.
  And how long did you discuss the case before Mr. Mack and Inspector Cameron were called in? - I should say roughly speaking ten minutes.
  From half to three quarters of an hour don't you think would be nearer the mark? - No, I should think it was too long.  I should say ten minutes.
  Mr. Mack took the tine by his watch and he says it was from half to three quarters of an hour? - I did not take the time, and I do not attach much importance to the circumstance.
  During this time whatever it was, you were occupied in examining the case.  How did you make your enquiries into the matter during that time? - The Committee considered before Captain McEuen the nature of the case; what the charge was, as we heard Captain's McEuen's plain statement that the coolie concerning whom it as alleged that the embezzlement had taken place by his name being placed on the pat sheet improperly, that it had been placed there by the Capt. Superintendent's authority.
  Any more? Was that all? - That is to all intents and purposes all that passed, but a great deal of conversation passed.  That I consider amply disposed of the case, the Captain Superintendent fully stating what the charge was, and he stated that he gave authority for the coolie's name to be put on the pay sheet.
  There was nothing more to be said in your view? - No, nothing.
  Did it occur to you to question Captain McEuen's authority to do it? - Not for a moment.  He was certainly within his authority and prerogative in having the man's name on the pay sheet.
  What I want to know is not whether Capt. McEuen's placing his name on the pay sheet disposed of the charge or not, but the question is whether that man was not  doing private work and received public pay? - Capt. McEuen said he was not doing private work; that he was a man in the service of the council, and that if he did private work, he did it for his own benefit.
  Then do you consider he had a right to appoint a man to do work in that way and be paid by the Council? - He had a perfect right to do it.
   And does that opinion of yours apply to other members of the Force? - I should say that it does, that is if they can get employment for their leisure hours off duty they can do so.
  And that is your view with regard to the members and discipline of the Force? - I do not think it at all improper.  A man, for instance, might be an amateur carpenter, and why should he be prevented earning a few dollars outside?
  A man who has an agreement to devote his whole time and attention to the service of the Council, is he entitled to do several hours private work, and there is nothing wrong in it? - I should think there is nothing wrong about it whatever.  It may, however, entirely depend on the circumstances.
  Mr. Drummond - I have not the least doubt that the members of the Police Force will be delighted to hear that opinion expressed by the Chairman of the Council, but I am afraid that if they act up to it, they would be dismissed by Capt. Superintendent McEuen.  But that is your view on that point, Mr. Keswick.  There is another aspect of the same thing to which I desire to call your attention.  You say that Capt. McEuen had perfect power do this, and that his stating to the Watch Committee that the man was doing public work and not private work, that that was sufficient?
  Witness - That was sufficient, and I should not question it for a moment.  A statement was made by Capt. McEuen and under the circumstances I should not question it for a moment.
  Without calling witnesses, or taking any steps to ascertain the grounds for the charge, his simple statement is sufficient to dispose of the whole charge? - Yes.
  Do you consider that Mr. Mack was to blame for bringing a charge against his superior officer in the Force? - I most distinctly do.
  You thought he was to blame? - I thought so then, and I think so now.
  You think then that no officer of the Force has a right to bring a charge against any other officer of the Force who is his superior officer? - My opinion on the subject is this, that as it was perfectly clear that Mack from malice and hatred of Cameron, trumped up this charge,  which in the month of February did not amount to a charge, - about a dollar, - for the purpose, as it were of waylaying his superior officer, waits and bides his time to bring his charge to do injury to Inspector  Cameron, I say under the circumstances that the statement of Captain McEuen was quite sufficient to enable us to come to a decision with regard to Mack.
  And without anything further? - Yes.
  Is it, in your opinion, a wrong thing for an officer of the police force, to bring a charge against one of his superior officers? - Yes, I consider it is a wrong thing.  I conceive that there are circumstances under which a man might do it, but it would require to be exceptionally strong circumstances.  Under the circumstances that Mack acted, I think he was very wrong.  But I wish to guard myself, as committing myself to a reply, which may involve other issues.  I wish to give replies based on the facts of his case, and therefore with the permission of the Court, I would ask you to confine your questions to matters that will not involve other issues that are not connected with this case.
  Mr. Drummond - I am confining myself entirely to the circumstances of this case, and the question I asked you is based on an official letter.  Do you consider it an impropriety?
  Witness - I do consider it an impropriety.
  Would it be an impropriety to make a charge against a man of equal rank? - I should like to have time to consider these questions.  I should say hat on the whole it might be an impropriety; it ought to be reported to his superior.  Yes it ought to be reported to the superior when he makes it.
   There are two points in that, one is making the charge against his superior officer, and the second is reporting to the superintendent, or members of the Council, two distinct things.  I am not dealing with the question as of reporting it, but with the point of making the charge.  Now is it an impropriety to make a charge against an officer of equal or inferior rank? - Not if reported to the proper officer.  If reported to the Captain Supt. by the person bringing the charge against an officer of equal or inferior rank it would not be an impropriety.  That is my opinion.
  Now I understand the substance of that long conversation in the Board Room before Mack was called in - whether it as ten minutes or three quarters of an hour - the substance cane down to tis, that Captain McEuen took the whole responsibility of putting the coolie's name on the pay sheet, and that it at once satisfied you and everyone in the room entirely? - Yes.
  Afterwards you called in Mr. Mack and Mr. Cameron did you not? - Yes.
  Did you then tell Mr. Mack that the Capt. Supt. had given permission or instructions to have this man placed on the pay sheet? - Yes.
  Did you tell him in the room? - Yes.
  Did anyone else tell him so? - I do not know; I know I did.  Mr. Mackenzie may have done so, but I forget whether he did or not, but I certainly told him Captain McEuen had given instructions to place him on the pay sheet.
  Did you el him that Capt. McEuen was authorised to give such orders? - No.
  Do you know whether that part of the subject was mentioned at all? - Not so far as I can remember.
  Now you have had no conversation with Mr. Mack about this mater except at that one interview? - No, none whatever.
  Did you come to the conclusion that he was actuated by malice in bringing the charge, before he came into the room?  Yes, I had that impression before he came into the room, and I had had it for several days.
  Where did you get that impression? - I got that impression from the general inquiries I made into the nature of the case, from what I heard of it, from what I knew of it, and from conversation I had about it.
  Then you constituted yourself a private enquiry office before you attended the meeting? - No., I did not.
  Did you give Mr. Mack an opportunity of knowing what your views were before then? - No.
  And have you given him an opportunity of meeting all these outside enquiries? - No.
  Then you were imbued with the idea that he had been actuated by malice before you got into the room? - I had not the slightest doubt of it.
  And that view was confirmed when he referred to 'that mam' and 'this man.'? - I formed an opinion of it long before, and that only confirmed it.
  Will you kindly state what it was that induced you to form the opinion that he had been actuated by malice? - His first coming to me was one thing.
  I just want to know the acts which came to your knowledge and built up within you the belief in his malice.
  In the first place, the remark made by Mack when he came to me in the evening stating that there was no use going to see Capt. McEuen, who would hear nothing against Cameron, that made me have a strong suspicion, and then afterwards I had conversation which I do not care to mention to you that led me to believe beyond all doubt that Detective Mack must have been moved by animus or he could not have been for months trumping up this charge against Inspector Cameron.
  Now you say it came from your first interview with him and afterwards from conversations you had with various people; I want to know who those people are - I do not feel called upon to tell you how I got, and from whom I got my information.
  Then do you think you are acting in a fair way to a man in this position after you have stated in the strongest terms that he was acting in a malicious manner, and you base your knowledge upon conversations received from various persons; do you think it is fair not to give the names of these persons so that he can meet what they say?
  I heard sufficient about this case, not from outsiders, to convince me that Mack was acting from malice.
  Did you give Mr. Mack an opportunity of knowing what your views were before then? - No.
  You seem to have a strong animus against Mr. Mack? - None whatever.
  Well, you judged from his demeanour at the meeting, and I am judging from the language you have used today.  Was he engaged in a case at the Mixed Court which caused you a great deal of trouble and expense? - Yes, without authority.
  How do you mean without authority? - He was not prosecuting with my authority.
  But he was engaged in a case which caused you a vast amount of trouble and expense? - It caused me some trouble certainly.
  You had at one time, I think, a high opinion of Mr. Mack? - I never formed any opinion of his character; I always found him vey zealous in anything I had to do with him.
  Did not your firm give him a reward? - Yes, in connection with the Armstrong case, and we have given him other rewards.
  Since you have been here? - Yes, certainly.
  You gave him Tls. 50? - I have forgotten the amount.  He was a very zealous officer so far as my knowledge went.
  Now you have stated, or rather it has been stated, that you made some remark at the meeting about Mr. Mac k looking at the pay sheets.  Is that correct? Did you ask him how he managed to see the pay sheets? - Yes, I asked him what right he had to look at the pay sheet, or words to that effect.
  Assuming for the moment that he had made a charge that he honestly believed in, do you think he would not be justified in going into the charge room and looking at the pay sheet to get evidence? - I should have thought not.
  Mr. Robinson - They are not kept in the Charge Room, they are in a private office, in Sergt. Millne's office at the Station.
  Mr. Drummond - You do know as a matter of fact that the pay sheets are frequently examined by the officers?
  Witness - Well, I did not know it, it is contrary to all regulations that pay sheets and private documents of that sort should be open for public inspection.
  Did you allow or encourage Mr. Mack when he came into the room at that meeting to go fully into the facts of the charges which he had brought against Mr. Cameron? - He made a statement.
  Did not Mr. Mackenzie first say to you 'Shall we tell him'? and did not you reply 'No, let him explain'? - It may have been so, I do not remember.
  I suppose no one could carry a conversation in his mind for all that time, but you will probably remember that her was anxious to call evidence or to complete his attempt at any rate to prove he correctness of the charge he had made, and you told him you did not want to hear any more? - He wanted to bring proofs, I told him it was not necessary.
  You did not want to hear any more about it? - No.
  Then you proceeded, did you not, to go somewhat fully into his motives for bringing the charges? - I asked him what his motives were, I was really referring to previous evidence of Mr. Robinson's.
  Did you tell him at that time that you were under the impression that he had acted maliciously in bringing these charges, or any words having that meaning? - I think I asked Mack what was his motive for bringing these charges; to the best of my recollection the term I used was 'Have you any animus against Inspector Cameron'? He said 'No, but we have not been on speaking terms.'
  And you understood that to imply that he had been influenced by malice? - I understood it to signify that they were no friends, that there was animus.
  It conveyed to your mind he impression that there was ill-feeling on his part towards Cameron.  Did you day anything at the time to him about your feeling that he must have been actuated by malice in bringing these charges? - I am not aware that I did so.
  Did any gentleman in the rom tell him that he was believed to have made a malicious charge, or anything of that kind? - I cannot say that I remember anyone having said that.  I do not think anyone said he had acted maliciously, but it may have been said.
  You know the letter that was written to him, I presume, dated 24th, on which he was dismissed? - Yes.
  Was there any reference in that to malice? - I did not read it. (The letter was then shewn to the witness and he said there appeared to be nothing about malice in it.)
  And on that letter he was dismissed. You will possibly have read the newspaper paragraph published in the minutes of the Council, referring to the case of Inspector Mack? - Yes.
  The N-C Daily News of June 30th was then shewn to the witness, and he said there was a reference to malice there.
  Mr. Robinson - Excuse me, those minutes refer to the meeting of 22nd June.
  Mr. Drummond - It is published on the 30th.
  Mr. Robinson - as being the minutes of 22nd June.
  Mr. Drummond -That is immaterial, it was published on that date, six days after the letter was written, and the letter says nothing about malice.
  (To witness) - Can you state what occurred between those dates which justified the Council in charging him with malice? - The Watch Committee formed that opinion at the meeting.
  Then why did they not convey that to Inspector Mack? - There was no necessity to say that to Inspector Mack.
  You think there as no necessity for saying it? - None whatever.
  You were not bound to give him any reason? - I think not.
  Do you think you are justified in dismissing anyone without giving a reason? - We are justified in dismissing anyone on sufficient grounds.  We always do give reasons and I understand that Mack got a reason.
  And then you were justified afterwards in giving a different reason altogether? - I do not see that that was done.  The malice was quite immaterial.
  You think it was quite within your power to do that? - Under the circumstances, yes.
  And you think it requires no justification? - Under the circumstances I think the dismissal required no justification.
  No justification? - No.
  Now you have also dismissed him on the ground that the Captain Superintendent told you that he was disrespectful? - He told us that he was extremely disrespectful.
  Did he say in words or manner? - Captain MEuen did mention, but I am not quite certain except that it was in words and manner generally.  What words were used I am not quite certain, but in manner certainly.
  Do you think it is sufficient for the Captain Superintendent to say at a man has behaved disrespectfully to him without giving any particulars as to what it consisted of? - Yes, if it amounted to insubordination, certainly.
   But without enquiring what it consisted of, how can you tell whether it amounted to insubordination or not? - Captain McEuen did inform the Committee what it consisted of, he did mention manner and language, but what the words were I cannot recollect.
  Did you ever take any pains whatever to bring to the notice of Mr. Mack, at his meeting when he was practically put on his trial - after bringing charges against another officer the tables were turned, and he was put on his trial and practically dismissed - did you ever take the trouble to ask him what answer he had to make to the charge of disrespect? No, I did not ask him, I was perfectly satisfied.
  You did not think it necessary to ask Mr. Mack what answer he had to make to the charge of disrespect? - No.
  Captain McEuen's statement was enough without any enquiry as to whether it was true or not? - His statement was quite enough.
  Mr. Drummond - That is plain speaking.  To Witness) Do you know as a matter of fact whether that charge of disrespect was ever brought to the notice of Mr. Mack until he was told that he was dismissed on account of it as one of the reasons?
  Witness - No.
  Do you know whether he was asked for an explanation? Captain McEuen was requested to ask for an explanation from Mack.
  Was he ever told what he was to explain? - Yes, I fancy if you refer to the letter it will state that he was asked to explain.
  Is there anything in writing in which Mr. Mack has ever been called upon to explain any disrespect either in word or manner? - In the letter you have just read.
  Mr. Drummond here read the letter to the witness and pointed out that there was nothing in it about disrespect.
  Witness - It is perfectly immaterial.
  Mr. Drummond - Everything seems immaterial when a man is dismissed.
  Witness -I beg your pardon, it is quite immaterial.
  How can he give an explanation unless he is told what were the disrespectful words he used, - I presume he is perfectly capable of denying it?
  Yes, but where is the disrespect, and what does it consist of? - Manner, and words.
  What was the manner and what were the words? - The words I have forgotten, and the manner I am not acquainted with.  To treat his Superintendent with disrespect is insubordination to a superior officer.
  And on that the Council are at liberty to dismiss him? - For the whole thing.
Re-examined:-
  Mr. Robinson - You were asked about the right of Captain McEuen to place the coolie on the pay sheet.  Has not every head of a department the right to incur any slight expense that he may find necessary without referring to the council?
  Witness - I conceive the work of a department could not go on unless the man at the head of it had some little latitude, but not reckless expenditure.
  My friend called your attention to the fact that the agreements with the Police require them to give their whole time to the work of the council.  Does that apply solely to members of the Force, and not to coolies? - I never heard of its application to coolies.
  My friend has asked you whether it was proper or improper for an inferior officer to bring a charge against a superior officer.  Do you mean to say that under no circumstances can an inferior officer bring a charge against a superior officer? - No, I do not. There are circumstances under which he might bring such a charge.
  You mean that he is bound down by the mode in which he should bring that charge? - Certainly.
  In point of fact, you mean, as I understand, that having occasion to make a charge he ought to bring it to the Capt. Superintendent? - Yes; if it is a charge affecting the Police Force he ought to take it to the Capt. Superintendent.
  My friend asks you whether at the meeting of the 18th June anything was said to Mack about his being actuated by malice, and you said that you asked Mack if he had any animus against Cameron.  Do you remember any remark being made by anyone on the Committee with reference to Mack's good faith in bringing this charge after so long a space of time had elapsed? - I myself asked him, with regard to that, when he first came to enquire into this, and he said in February.
  And what remark did you make upon that? - I said 'Why did you not bring it to the notice of the Captain Superintendent at the time?
  Did you speak of good faith? - I think I said "Did you consider it to be in accordance with your duty?" or something to that effect.
  Mr. ROBERT MACKENZIE was then called and examined by Mr. Robinson.
  Mr. Robinson - Mr. Mackenzie, you are a member of the Municipal Council, ae you not?
  Witness - yes.
  And Chairman of the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  Do you remember Inspector Mack calling upon you on the 8th June? - I think that was the date.  I remember his calling upon me.
  Under what circumstances? - Something connected with the Police, as he called it.
  Did he go into details? - He began to tell me of a charge he had to make against Chief Inspector Cameron, and mentioned that the charge was in connection with a coolie.
  Anything about the pay sheet? - And falsifying the pay sheet - that was the name he gave it.
  Did he mention to you that he had been to the Secretary of the Council and to Mr. Keswick? - No, he did not.
  You are quite certain? - I feel quite certain about it.
  Did he express a wish to attend a meeting of the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  When was that meeting to be held? - The same evening.
  What time was it when you saw him? I think it was before tiffin, but I am not quite certain, it was about midday.
  What did you say about his attending the meeting of the Watch Committee? - I said there was no occasion for that; I would make enquiries about it and look into the matter.
  Did you subsequently find out that he had been to the Secretary and to Mr. Keswick? - Yes.
  In consequence of that, did you bring the matter before a meeting of the Council? - I first mentioned it to the other members of the Watch Committee, and asked them what they thought should be done; they recommended that the matter should be brought before the Council at the next meeting.
  Was it brought before them? - Yes. By me.
  And what decision was come to by the Council? - The Watch Committee were ordered to look into the matter.
  What conclusion was come to at that meeting? - After hearing what I had to say about it they recommended that the Watch Committee should look into the matter.
  Were any instructions given besides that to the Watch Committee? - Not that I recollect.
  Had any communication to be made to anyone? - Oh, I think it was at that sane meeting that the Council said that the Secretary had better write to Capt. McEuen and tell him to call, upon Mack to put his charge in writing, and make it through him, Capt. NcEuen.
  Have you seen the letters the Secretary wrote? - Yes.
  You remember the date of the meeting you are speaking of? - The 15th, I think it was - on the next day to that on which Mack called on me.
  You say it was on that day the Secretary was instructed to write to the Captain Superintendent? - Yes, I think so, but I may forget dates.
  Was the charge brought through the Captain Superintendent by Mack? - Mack answered the Captain Superintendent's letter by making a charge in writing.
  Do you remember a letter in which Capt. McEuen reported what was done to the Council? - No, I cannot remember it.
  Do you remember his being suspended? - Well, I did not know of his suspension until afterwards on the same evening, or it may have been next morning.
  What happened next? - Then there was a meeting of the Watch Committee called, and Mr. Keswick was invited to attend.
  Who were present at that meeting? - Mr. Keswick, Mr. Adler, Mr. Henningsen, the Captain Superintendent, the Secretary of the Council, and myself.
  Did you discuss the case amongst yourselves? - We had a little talk over the case before either Mack or Cameron was called in.
  And then was Mack called in? - Mack and Cameron were called in at the same time.
  Did Mack give an explanation? - He made a statement.
  Was he asked his reasons? - Yes.
  Did they satisfy the Committee? - They did not.
  Was any evidence brought before the Committee as to the terms on which Mack and Cameron were? - Mack was a sked, by Mr. Keswick, I think, if he was on good terms with Cameron, or on bad terms, I do not know which way the question was put.
  Was any evidence given to the Committee before that of the terms upon which Mack and Cameron were? I do not remember.
  Now, in the course of Mack's interview with the Watch Committee was his attention drawn to what his duty would be in making such a charge? - Yes, I myself asked him if he did not know that it was his duty to report such things as this to the Capt. Superintendent, and he replied yes, and if the Secretary did not tell him it was his duty, and I said, "Do you not think if you had gone to the Superintendent you would probably have got an explanation of the whole thing?"
  What did he say? I do not remember any definite reply he made to that.
  Did he state at this meeting the time at which he first became aware of what he supposed was the irregularity? - Yes, he said about the month of February.  That was in answer to a question put to him by Mr. Keswick.
  Did Mack inform you that he had witnesses to support his statements? Yes. He informed us that he had witnesses to prove that what he said about the coolie was correct; he mentioned Sergeant Millne, and I think some Chinese.
  Was here any dispute as to anything said about the coolie? - No, the Committee quite admitted that what he said about the coolie working for Mr. Camron was correct; but seeing that they knew that Cameron had the consent of the Captain Superintendent they thought there was no necessity of calling witnesses.
  Now you have had considerable experience of the council, have you not? - I have been on the Council for several years; not long on the Watch Committee.
  In your opinion had the head of a department a right to incur trifling expenses without consulting the Council? - He has.
  Such as a coolie? - Yes, I think the heads of departments are allowed to spend small sums.  It is specially mentioned in the case of the surveyor, that he can spend small sums, not exceeding a certain amount, for work that requires to be done, without reference to the Council.
  Do you remember when Mack called upon you the first time telling him not to tell Capt. McEuen anything about it? - I do not remember saying he was not to tell Capt. McEuen.  I said, "Say nothing more about it at present.  Leave the matter to me, I will enquire into it."
  Supposing he had spoken to Capt. McEuen, would he have acted contrary to your directions? - No, certainly not.
  He would have done what you considered right? - Certainly.
Cross-examined:-
     Mr. Drummond - How am I to understand that last answer, Mr. Mackenzie? I understood you to say that you old Mack that hew as to do nothing about it, to leave it in your hands until you communicated with him again?
  Witness - I did not say, "Wait until I communicate with you again," I only said, "Leave the matter in my hands, and say nothing more about it." My intention was to make some enquiries, which I did.
  Do you think he would have been carrying out that by going and reporting it to Captain McEuen and so starting a separate enquiry somewhere else? Would that be saying nothing more about it? - It would not have been in the strict letter of what I told him.
  But would it not have been against the spirit of it? - Not against the spirit of what I intended.
  Would he not, by putting other people to work in a case which you told him to say nothing more about, b acting against both the spirit and the letter of what you had told him? - Well, perhaps it would; if he understood it in that way.
  It is the plain meaning of the words, whatever meaning they may have intended to convey, is it not? - As a matter of fact, as soon as I commenced to make my enquiries I found he had spoken about it to others.  I first went to the Secretary.  I was talking about some other subject, perhaps the weather, and I casually said, "Where are the pay sheets?| he smiled in my face and said, "Has Mack been at you?" I said, "Yes." He said, "He has been at Mr. Keswick too." I said, "Then I cannot let the matter rest, I must examine into it at once."
  But it was before he went to you that he went to Mr. Keswick? - I did not know that.
  Did Mack ask you if he might be present at any investigation? - He asked me if he might be present at the Watch Committee meeting that night.
  At an investigation that night? - Not an investigaton.  He asked to be present at the meeting to make this statement.
  Did you say you would bring it up at this particular meeting? - No, I did not.
  Did you say you would not bring it up at that particular meeting, as Captain McEuen would be present? - I do not remember saying that.
  But you cannot say you did not? - No.
  Mack's memory is very clear; he has a deep personal interest in the matter and he has taken notes from day to day.  I wish to see if your memory agrees with his? - I do not remember it, but I cannot swear I did not say it.  I had no time to make enquiries before that meeting took place, so that I did not want to bring it up there.
  Are you quite sure that Mr. Mack did not tell you that Mr. Keswick had sent him to you? - I feel quite sure of that. Had he told me that he had been to see Mr. Keswick and Mr. Thorburn, I should not have said "Leave the matter with me," because it would not have been left with me at all.
  You remember the morning of the 17th, when Mack told you he had been suspended? - Yes.
  Did he tell you he did not know what he had been suspended for? - He showed me the note he had received from McEuen, and said that McEuen had suspended him.
Did he tell you he did not know what he had been suspended for? - He may have said that.
  Did you ask him if Cameron was suspended? - I did not.  He asked me whether I knew if Cameron was suspended.
  You did not ask him? - I did not ask him.
  There was a meeting of the Watch Committee on the 18th, was there not, ay which Mr. Keswick and Capt. McEuen and the Secretary of the Council were present? - Yes.
Did you meet at 5.30? - I forget.  It was somewhere after 4 o'clock at any rate.
  After reading the minutes did you proceed at once to the business of Mack's case? - Yes, I think so.
  What steps did you take to enquire into the case then? - We heard what Capt. McEuen had to say about it, and then called Mack and Cameron in.
  How long afterwards? - Twenty or thirty minutes.
  What did Captain McEuen say in substance? - He told us that this coolie who had been partly employed by Inspector Cameron had been sanctioned by him, that Cameron asked him about it, and that it was with his consent that he was there.
  For those months - February, April and May? - We did not ask him about those particular months, we took it for granted it was for the whole time.
  And Captain McEuen told you that Mr. Cameron had asked to have this coolie? - Yes, he said that he had mentioned it, and Mr. Thorburn told us that Cameron had a sked him if he could be allowed a coolie here, as he had been allowed one in Hongkong.
  At the same meeting? - Yes, and he had told me that before.
  The coolie was to be a coolie who wad to work, you understand, in Mr. Cameron's private house, and to be paid by the Council? - No, he was to be one of the coolies employed at the Station, who was to be allowed to work partly in Mr. Cameron's house.
  And that, he said, he had been allowed in Hongkong? - So he said.
  Did Mack ask you whether Captain McEuen had power to allow a coolie to Mr. Cameron? - I think he did ask that.
  Did he ask you the first time he saw you whether Captain McEuen had power to do it without an order? - I think he did.
  Did Mr. Thorburn mention it to you? - Yes.  When I first called on him he told me that Mack had been there, and he told me also of his interview with Cameron - relative to the allowance of a colie at Hongkong - before that; and Mr. Thorbuirn led me to believe that he told Cameron that there would be no harm in his using a collie as long as it did not interfere with is station work.
  The Capt. McEuen at the meeting took the responsibility of saying he had given permission to Mr. Cameron to have his coolie? - Yes.
  Was that satisfactory to you as soon as he had told you that? - Yes. Capt. McEuen has the whole work of the police in his hands.
  Can he give a man permission to do private work outside? - I believe as a matter of fact all the unmarried inspectors get the station coolies to clean out their quarters; and I suppose Cameron thought there would be no harm in his having this done.  Capt. McEuen would not object, nor would the Council.
  You think Captain McEuen would have power to do that? I think he would have plenty of power.
  I think you said you understood that the unmarried Inspectors get their quarters cleaned out by the station coolies? - Yes.  I have not been told so by themselves.
  Then if you were old by somebody who knows that it is not done at all would you believe him? - Yes, but I have been told by persons who are supposed to know, that it is done.
  Did you ever inquire when it was that Capt. McEuen gave his consent? - No.
  Therefore you could not tell whether he gave his consent before the coolie had been employed by Mr. Cameron? - No. I suppose it would be about the time Cameron spoke to the Secretary.
  Did you make any inquiry into that at all? - NO.
  If the coolie had been employed by Mr. Cameron before he got Capt. McEuen's authority would you think that proper? - I would not think it very serious.
  Mr. Drummond - Oh serious is nothing.  Mr. Keswick does not consider stealing a dollar to be stealing apparently.  Would it have been a right thing or a wrong thing to do for a man who is the second officer of the police force? After he had got the Captain Superintendent's authority you say it is right; would you say he had a right to do it before getting his authority?
  Witness - Well, perhaps not, but I should not look upon it as a very serious offence.
  If he had no right to do it, would you not consider that Mack had a right to bring up a charge like this if he thought the Council was being defrauded? - I think brining up such a charge on so trivial a thing as that was altogether out of the question.
  Do you remember saying that Captain McEuen was like Mr. Clarke; he never exceeded the estimates? - No.  What I said about Mr. Clarke was simply this.  I think Mack asked whether the Captain Superintendent had the right to engage an extra coolie, and if I did not say it in plain words, what I meant was that the heads of departments could spend small sums, just as Mr. Clarke was allowed to, so long as he did not exceed his estimates.
  Did Mr. Mack say to you he thought that was a  rotten argument, and ask you if you thought it would be right if anyone was told to engage a number of constables, to put the money in his pocket so long as the work was done? - He said something like that, I believe.
  Did you ever hear anything about Mack's having been disrespectful to the Captain Superintendent? - That was mentioned by Captain McEuen.
  When? - After his interview with Mack on the evening he was suspended. I cannot give you the date, but it was mentioned at h meeting - I think at a meeting of the Watch Committee.
  Was it before Mack come into the room. - Yes. I think it was.
  Was it mentioned to Mr. Mack after he came into the room? - I forget.
  You know it was never mentioned in the letter I which the reasons were given for his dismissal? - I believe not.
  Can you give me the reason why? - No, I cannot.
  Was the nature of the disrespect explained? Were you told what the words were, or what the manner was?  Were any details given as to what it consisted of? - I believe it was chiefly in manner, his disrespectful manner to Capt. McEuen.
  Were any words mentioned? - No.
  Did you take any pains to have Mr. Mack informed of what the disrespect was, and to give him a chance to deny or explain it? - I took no steps to do so.
  Before that meeting did you form any opinion as to ether Mr. Mack was acing maliciously in the matter - from any personal il-will towards Mr. Cameron? - I think not.  I formed an opinion as soon as Mack spoke to me that Camron could not be guilty of this, that I should find it to be some small thing, and that Mack was wrong.
  Did you form any opinion as to malice? - No, I did not think anything about it then.
  Did you at the meeting? - At the meeting a question was asked Mr. Mack, and the reply was that they had not been on good terms for some time.
  That they did not speak? - That they did not speak, except on duty I suppose, on account of some quarrel they had had months before.
  Do you think he had il-will? I thought seeing he charge brought in such a paltry manner it did show ill-will.
  Did you ask him? - I did not, but other members of the committee asked the question.
  You know that meeting was on the 18th and he was written to on the 24th, the letter giving the reasons on which he as dismissed? - Yes.
  You are aware that in that letter there was no reference to malice at all? - I think not.
  Are you aware also that on the 30th the newspaper paragraph of the minutes contained a statement that he had made not only unfounded charges but malicious charges? - Yes.
  Can you tell me what induced them to put in such a paragraph when the previous letter did not mention malice at all? - I cannot remember any reason.  It was an extract from the minutes.
  Drawn up by whom? By the Secretary, and submitted to the council before it was published.
 That would probably be on the 29th? - Yes.
  Then you say that at that meeting you decided to publish a paragraph stating that he had brought unfounded and malicious charges? - Well, as we were convinced in our own minds that the charge was malicious, we thought there was no harm in putting it in.
  Although in the letter you had not mentioned malice at all? - It seems so.
  Do you think it was fair? - I am no judge of these matters.
  You can surely tell me whether it was fair or not? - If I had the letter to write now I should put the maliciousness into the letter.
  You would not go and first publish it in the paper, though it was not put in his private letter? - That would be hard upon him, would it not? - I do not think so.
  If you sent a man out into the world after working so many years for the Council, and put into the papers that stronger charge than that upon which you dismissed him according to his letter, do you not think that is very hard? - Not too hard for the occasion.
  But you would not do it now? - If I had to do it now, I would put it in the letter.
  Ae you satisfied that he acted in a malicious manner? - Yes, in my own mind I am quite satisfied.
  What is it that makes you believe that? Is it simply because the charge is a small one? - No, because he seems to have disliked Cameron, and the charge is a small one.
  Cameron has a similarly strong feeling towards him, to your knowledge, has he not? - Well, he may have good case for it.
  Would you describe his feeling towards Mack as malicious also? - Not unless he gave me occasion to do it.
  Do you consider that the members of the Police Force, foreign and Chinese, are justified in occupying their private time in making money in any way they can - that is, men who ae engaged in the police force by the Council? - I think their agreements say something about that, about giving up all their time to the Council's work.
  Is not everybody who works for the Council supposed to be always engaged in the service of the Council? - They may be told off for special duties outside, by permission at any rate.
  But without permission would they be justified in making money in ways which involved occupation of their time? - No, I think they would not.
  Mr. Robinson - To whom does that last answer apply? Does it apply to members of the Force?
  Witness - I think all members of the Police who -
   Does it apply to coolies? - I was going to say all members of the Force who have agreements with the Council, at all events.
  May not coolies be engaged in duties not particularly the Council's, such as cleaning the Inspector's quarters? - I look upon that as part of their duties under the council.  We expect officers' and police quarters to be kept clean.
  Mr. Alabaster - Was Mack dismissed for this insolence to Capt. McEuen, or for making an unfounded and malicious charge against Cameron?
  Witness - Well, for both, and also because Capt. McEuen recommended that he should be dismissed.
  Mr. Alabaster - For three reasons?
  Witness - Yes, for three reasons.
  Mr. Alabaster - He had borne a very good character up to that time?
  Witness - Till a year ago I only knew him by sight.  I had seen him mentioned as a vey zealous officer, but as for his character I knew nothing about it.
  The SENIOR CONSUL - Did the Watch Committee make their report to the Council at the Council's meeting, or in writing?
  Witness - At the Council's meeting.
  Are minutes taken at the Watch Committee's meetings? - Yes.
  The SENIOR CONSUL asked if these minutes could be produced, but they did not appear to be in Court, and Mr. Robinson said the substance of what took place at the Committee's meeting was to be found in the published minutes of the Council. The Senior Consul said he would not insist on the production of the Committee's minutes.
  Mr. Robinson - My friend asks you about your undertaking to work up the case for Mack.  I understand you to say that you did not do that; you simply told him that you would enquire about the case?
  Witness - Yes.
  And finding that two other people had been spoken to about it, you did not make enquiries, but brought the mater before the Watch Committee? Yes.
  And they brought it before the Council? - Yes.
  When you spoke to Mack and said "Leave the matter with me for the present," did you intend at that time to prohibit him from going to Captain McEuen or speaking to him about it? - As I said before, had he gone to Capt. McEuen I should not have blamed him for it.
  You were asked whether when Mack asked you if he could attend the meeting of the Watch Committee that afternoon you told him you would not bring it up that afternoon because Capt. McEuen would be sitting at the meeting, and you replied that you could not say? - No, I could not say.
  Would there be any reason whatever in the fact that Capt. McEuen was sitting there that should prevent you from bringing the matter up? - I did not want the matter brought up at all until I had made some enquiries into it.
  You did not know as a matter of fact that the unmarried Inspectors had the station coolies to clean out their quarters? - I did not know it as a matter of fact.
  I understand you to say that from all you know of the circumstances and from what you said at the meeting of the 18th the Committee came to the conclusion that Mack was animated by malicious feeling towards Cameron?  Yes.
  And you entertain that feeling still? - I do.
  JAMES PAINTER MCEUEN was then called and examined by Mr. Robinson.
  Mr. Robinson - You are Captain Superintendent of the Shanghai Police Force?
  Witness - Yes.
  Previous to your taking over charge of the Police Force, did you have some conversation with Mr. Holliday about reports made by Mr. Mack previously? - Yes.
  Mr. Robinson - Just tell me about it.
  Witness - I saw Mr. Holiday and told him that I had understood it to be a custom for subordinate members of the Force to go behind the Back of the Superintendent to the members of the council, and I said if that were allowed to go on it would bring the discipline of the Force to the ground; he said it should be put a stop to and he would see Mr. Mack and instruct him to discontinue the practice.  I afterwards saw Mr. Holiday and he told me that he had seen Mack and instructed him that in future all complaints to the Watch Committee were to be sent through me.
  What was the first complaint you had against Mack? - I suppose the first I really had was from Inspector Forbes, who is now dead.  He complained of Mack's treatment of him at the Mixed Court.
  Well, we will not go into that.  You have not said anything to me about that before.  What was the next complaint made to you about him? - The next complaint I had was from Mr. Cameron.
  When? - About the end of September or the first of October.
  The following letters were then put in:-
 Central Station, 30th Sept. 1884
  SIR, - I have the honour to bring to your notice the disgraceful conduct of Inspector Mack, in so far that on various occasions, between the 25th April and the 1th September, 1884, he instructed one of the native detectives to make enquiries of the different native members of the Force who have joined since my arrival here. How much money they had to pay me before I allowed them to be taken on as constables.  I am in a position to prove that these inquiries have been made to a number of the men who have joined the service since my arrival here; also that a number of the old members of the force have been enquired of as to how much they had to pay Inspector Forbes when they joined.
  The detective who made these enquiries is Sow-king, at present stationed at the Louza Station.
I have the honour, &c., J. B. Cameron, &c.
  To this letter was the following note:
   Inspector Mack is requested to give his explanation of the complaint brought against him by the Chief Inspector.  The explanation is to be in writing.
J. P. McEuen, C.S.P.
  Central Station, 30th Sept., 1885
  SIR, - With regard to the complaint made against me by Chief Inspector Cameron, I deny that I gave the orders he refers to, otherwise I fail to see that I have acted other than in the proper discharge of my duties.
I have the honour, &c., Arthur Mack.
  Mr. Robinson - Mack denied making these enquiries? - Yes.
 And you gave him the benefit of the doubt? - I did.
  You did not examine anybody did you? - Only Sow-king and Mack.
  What was the next complaint made to you? - The next complaint was in connection with the charge he brought against Inspector Cameron of embezzling $14.20.
  Was that letter you received from the Secretary the next complaint you received? - Yes.
  What was the date of it? - It must have been the 16th June.
  Did that instruct you to call upon Mack for certain explanations? - It did.
  (The correspondence was handed to the witness and identified by him.)
  Did you consider Mack's a proper reply to your enquiry? - No, I did not.
  In consequence of that correspondence what did you deem it was your duty to do? - To suspend him.
  When was that? - On the 16th.
  What for? - Breach of police discipline.
  Was Mack's behaviour to you upon that occasion proper from an officer in his position?  No, it was not.
  Kindly describe the impression left on your mind by his behavior. - He was very disrespectful in his manner.  He was writing on the top of the desk, and he kept turning to Kluth and saying, "Now just take that down," and he said to me "Now, this matter is going before the Council, and you had better be there."  It was said in a threatening sort of way.
  His suspension was brought before the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  When? - I reported the matter immediately afterwards - the next day.
  Was a meeting of the Watch Committee called in consequence of your report? - Yes.
  Wen? - On the following day, the 18th.
  Who was present at that meeting? - The Chairman of the Watch Committee, and Messrs. Adler, Henningsen, Keswick and myself and the Secretary of the Council.
 Did you enter into any explanation of the subject to the Committee? - I did.
  What did you tell them regarding the charges of embezzlement and causing the pay sheets to be falsified? I told them that the charges were totally unfounded, that this lamp-trimer referred to was taken on by my orders, and if any one embezzled the money, I did it.
  Did you ever order the name of that coolie to be struck off he pay sheet for the month of March? - No, never.
  Mr. Robinson - Sergt. Mllne did not absolutely say you did, but he said he thought you did.
  Witness - I did not.
  Mr. Drummond - Sergt. Millne did not say that he thought so, he said so positively.  I asked him two or three times.
  Witness - Well, I am just as positive I did not.
  Mr. Robinson to witness - At any rate you are quite certain you did not order it to be struck off?
  Mr. Robinson after referring to his notes said Mr. Drummond was quite right, Sergt. Millne had stated positively that Captain McEuen had ordered him to strike the man off.
  Mr. Robinson (to Witness) - You think it was either a mistake of Millne's or whoever wrote on the pay sheet? - Yes, certainly.
  Was that man engaged part of the time at Carter Road? - Yes.
  And was he entitled to be paid for that period? - Yes.
  Therefore it is obvious that his name ought to have been on the pay sheet? - Yes.
  During the remainder of the month do you know of your own knowledge where that man was? I do not know of my own knowledge.
  To go back to the meeting of June 18th, did you tell the Committee what Mack should have done? - Yes.  I said if Mr. Mack had come to me in the first place the whole trouble would have been saved, and there would have been no necessity for any enquiry at all.
  This explanation I understand took place before Mr. Cameron and Mack came into the room? - Yes.
  Was Mack asked for his reasons for making this charge? - Yes.
  Did he make a statement? - Yes.
  Mr. Robinson - Give us the substance in so far as it affects this question.
  Witness - He commenced by saying he got information, that this coolie was employed at the Chief Inspector's quarters and was not doing his duty as a lamp coolie; he said he went on with his enquiries till the time he made the charge; that considered he had a right to make inquiries about anybody, whether in the Council or outside it, and that he always worked up his cases himself and came afterwards to tell me about them.
  Did you or anybody tell him while he was giving his explanation that if he had gone to you in the first instance he would have had the whole matter explained to him? - Yes, I believe one of the members of the Committee told him so, and I had told him so myself the night he was suspended, or it may have been the next morning, when he came to me and asked for a private interview.
  Now, do you know of your own knowledge or experience whether Inspector Cameron and Mr. Mack were on good terms? - No they were not.
  From wat period did that date? - I think it arose from the complaint made to me by Mr. Cameron; so far as I know that was the origin of it.
  Did you attribute the charges brought by Mack against Cameron to ill-feeling in connection with that? - Yes, I did.
  Why did you? - This had been going on for so long, and I thought these charges were the outcome of it.
  Did you consider the charges founded or unfounded? - Unfounded, certainly.
  If you find a man brining up unfounded charges, what would you attribute to? - Generally to malice.
  Then was it because you considered the charge unfounded that you thought he acted maliciously? Yes, and from wat had happened before.
  Then did you consider in your judgment that, in the interests of the Council and the community, it was desirable that Mack and Cameron should remain in the Force after Mack had brought these unfounded charges? -  Certainly mot.
  And which did you think ought to be dismissed? - The one who brought the unfounded charges, certainly.
  A number of extracts from the Police Regulations were read and the witness was asked if in his opinion Mack had by his conduct infringed each of those rules, to which the witness replied that Mack had in each case. One of these rules said that a member of the Force could be dismissed for utterly departing from the truth, and witness said he considered that by bringing unfounded charges, Mack had broken this rule.
  Mr. Robinson - Now, soon after you came here you commenced compiling a set of Police regulations?
  Witness - I did.
  Did you give a proof copy of these regulations to each of the Inspectors, including Inspector Mack? - Yes, for the purpose of enabling them to make suggestions.
  Are there any unmarried men at the Central Station? - Yes. All the constables are unmarried.
  Who cleans out their quarters? - The station coolies.
  And it is the same in Hongkew? - Yes.
  It is part of their work? - Yes.
Cross-examined:-
  Mr. Drummond - Captain McEuen, you are now Supt. of the Police Force?
  Witness - Yes.
  What is your nationality? - My father was a Scotchman.
  Mr. Drummond - A very good nationality.  What is your age?
  Witness - Forty-five in March.
  What was your occupation prior to coming to Shanghai?  I was actively engaged in the navy from 1855 to 1856; then I joined the Colonial Service and remained there 5 or 6 months, and went to Hongkong in 1875 as Assistant Harbour Master and remained here till 1884.
  Did you then have any experience of police duties? - Yes.
  How long and in what capacity? - I was thirteen months out of the time Acting Deputy Superintendent, and part of the time I was head of the Police.
  Any other experience in Police work? - No.
  No training in Police work in your life anywhere?  No.
  Have you any means, except what you have mentioned, of obtaining knowledge of the duties of Police offices? - No, except from general observation in Hongkong, and as a magistrate.
  How long have you acted as magistrate? - On several occasions, for a year or eighteen months at a time.
  Mr. Robinson - as Police Magistrate?
  Witness - As Police Magistrate.
  Mr. Drummond - When did you come here?
  Witness - I arrived here on the 20th February, 1884.
  Many changes have taken place in the Police Force since then? - Yes.
  Have you had an active part in organizing and arranging these changes and carrying them out? -Not with the men running away, if that is what you mean.
  Mr. Drummond - I said nothing about that.
  Witness - Well, I thought perhaps you were referring to that.
  Have you taken part in the arrangements of the changes that have been made? - Of course I have, I have assisted by the Chief Inspector.
  And you have not been overridden with regard to the management of the Police in any way? All that you have doe has met with the support of the Council? - Yes, and the Watch Committee.
  You talk about men running away.  How many have run away - I cannot say.
  Mr. Robinson - May I ask what this has to do with the case?
  Mr. Drummond - Really he brought u the subject. (To witness) - More than twenty is it not?
  Witness - Yes.
  All European officers in the Police Force? - Yes.
  Were they all bad characters or not? Any good characters amongst them? - I cannot answer that.  They cannot have been very good to run away.
  The SENIOR CONSUL - This has nothing to do with the case.
  Mr. Drummond - These last questions were really prompted by the witness himself.  But it was really upon this man's recommendation that the plaintiff was dismissed, and it is well to see what knowledge he has of Police duties.  The suggestion that the men running away was due to him, and came from himself. (To witness) - Had you anything else against Mack besides what you have mentioned, from the time you took charge of the Police Force up till the time Mr. Cameron made this complaint?
  Witness - No.
  Did you have any reason up to that timer to think that he was an active and zealous officer? - Yes.
  Very well then, now the first complaint comes from Mr. Cameron, and that is dealt with; it is not Mack who complains of Cameron, it is Cameron who started the war against Mr. Mack? - Yes.
  That you dealt with by a memorandum amounting to a judgment; did you ever take the matter before the Watch Committee? - Yes.
  Did you tell Mr. Cameron and Mr. Mack that? - No, I do not think I did.  I may have told them.
  Do not you know that they were constantly asking you to take it to the Watch Committee? - No, Mr. Cameron asked me in his letter, but Mr. Mack never did.
  You settled it yourself?  I settled it myself; at least it was never really settled as it turned out.
  You gave a decision in which neither were satisfied? - I do not know about Mr. Mack, Mr. Cameron was not.
  Then you got a second complaint against Mr. Mack from Mr. Cameron on the 16th June? - That was not from Mr. Cameron, it was from the Council.
  Against whom? - Against Mack.
  Have you ever received a complaint by Mack against Cameron? - Not in a straightforward way, never.
  Has he ever asked you to get this matter between himself and Cameron settled - to take it to the Watch Committee? - Never.
  You say you suspend him on your own authority, or by any other authority? - Well, I may tell you I had it in my mind to suspend him on the evening of the 16th, but before doing it I thought I would see the Chairman of the Council. I saw him that evening about 6 'clock.  I went to ask him about suspending Mr. Mack, but before I could ask him he suggested it himself.
  Where did you see him? - In his office.
  About 6 o'clock? - It might have been after seven when he suggested it.  I said, "That is really what I have come to you about and that is my intention." I went back, and at about 8.30 or 9 'clock I suspended him. Mr. Keswick was of the same opinion as I was, and that strengthened me in my views.
  What was the ground? - Well, he neglected or refused to comply with a memo I gave him; he said he ailed to see that he had committed a breach of the Police Regulations.  I considered that he had, and as he had not the sense to see it, I suspended him.
  Then you considered that the wat of intelligence in not seeing what you saw was sufficient ground for the suspension? - Yes.
  It showed such an entire absence of intelligence that you considered he was not fit to remain in the Force? - If he could not see what his duty was, he ought to be able to.
  My intelligence is also so deficient that I cannot see what regulation h broke. Will you please explain it? - He had no right whatever to go to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and Secretary of the Council behind my back and make a report to them about an officer of the Force.
  That you considered derogatory to your dignity as Captain Superintendent of Police? - I consider it as a breach of police discipline.
  That was the thing you suspended him for; it as not for bringing unfounded charges? - No, the charges were outside of it altogether, it was simply for that.
  That you think was so plain that he ought to have seen it? - I consider so, certainly.
  Did he on any previous occasion mention the differences between himself and Mr. Cameron and wish to get them settled - differences in connection with McFarlane's case for instance? - I do not know whether he did himself, but Mr. Wilkinson brought it to my notice, and I said "Well, I see you do not get on together, and while this case is going on, I will go round myself so as to prevent any trouble arising between you."
  You said these differences were getting public, and must be settled? - I do not remember saying that.
  Do you recollect Mack mentioning to you the mater of a native detective collecting a bad debt? - No, he never bought it to my attention at all.
  Did you hear of it? - Yes.  I heard of it.
  Did you take any steps about it? - I had the thing explained to me.
  By whom? - By Mr. Cameron.
  The charge was against Mr. Cameron, was it not? - There was no charge.
  Well, the suggestion was that he had given a reward, was it not? - There was no suggestion.  Mr.  Cameron came and reported the matter to me himself. He told me the money was given to the man.
  This evening that you suspended him, I understand that it was about 7 o'clock on the evening of the 16th, was it not? - At about 8.30 or 8.45.
  Had you seen Mack that same evening or that day? - I do not remember, except that I think he brought me his answer, "I fail to see."
  When did the meeting take place at which you considered Mr. Mack's conduct disrespectful? - About 8.45 on June 16th.
  You say that he said this mater would have to go before the Council, and generally spoke in a threatening way? - Yes.
  You do not like them to talk to you; you have to tell a Sergeant that if he did not go out of the office you would kick him out? - Never.
  Not on one occasion? - No.
  Then if one says so, h is wrong? - Yes.
  You did not mention to Mack his disrespectful manner? - No.
  You did not even remonstrate with him? - No.
  Did you ever speak to him about it afterwards? - No I reported it to the Council next day.
  Was he ever informed by any body what the disrespect was that he was charged with? Not that I know of.
  Now at this meeting I understand that you told these gentlemen who were present that the charges were totally unfounded, and that if any money had been embezzled you had embezzled it? - Yes.
  Did you tell them that you had sanctioned the embezzlement of tis coolie by Mr. Cameron? - Yes, I told them that before, when I was first told of it.  I heard of it on Monday, and I told Mr. Mackenzie I was the man who had authorized it.
  And you told also the embers who were present in that room? - Yes.
  Did you sanction Mr. Cameron making use of his services?  He came to me in March and told me that this man's name was not on the pay sheet; I said I did not understand it at all, and told him to have it put on again.  It did not require my sanction for him to use the coolie because he was entitled to his services.
  Did you not tell Sergt. Millne to strike his name off? - No, I did not.
  Can you understand why Sergt. Millne should say he did bring it to your notice and that you told him to strike it off? - No.
  Sergt. Millne is still in the Service, and liable to dismissal in a summary manner like any other member of the Force? - Yes.
  You cannot suggest any reason why he should say that, if I is not true? - No, he might be under the impression that I told him so, but I certainly did not.
  Then you told Mr. Cameron some time in April when he mentioned that this coolie had been struck off the pay sheet that he was to put his name back again? - Yes.
  How was it stuck off in March then? - I suppose it happened in the transfer somehow, but I do not know how.  In March the Indians came from Carter Road Station. The Bubbling Well people were only allowed nine constables, and the balance were taken into the Settlement.  Shortly afterwards the old station coolies came to me and complained about having to clean out the Indians' quarters; I said if they could not do it they must go away and we would get men wo would.  Then  knowing that this man had been mixed up with the Indians, we thought it better that he should come and do the work, and one of the other men be sent to the Carter Road Station.
  That is the only reason you can suggest? - Well, perhaps Sergt. Millne knew that the coolie had gone, and did not know the other had come.
  Could he strike off a man's name without sanction? - If he thought the man was not there he would leave his name out.
  When he says he always drew your attention to the list before making any changes in it, is he wrong? - As a rule he does not bring it to me except to sign it; sometimes he comes and asks if I have seen this or that.
  Would he not do that before leaving the name out? - Not if he thought the man was not there.
  Do you know whether Mr. Cameron made any enquiry of the Secretary of the council as to whether he could have a coolie allowed to him? - No.
  Did he make any request to you for one?
  Witness - Do you mean a special coolie?
  Mr. Drummond - Yes.
  Witness - No, he did not.
  Up to the time that this charge was made by Mr. Mack against Mr. Cameron, had any other circumstances led you to believe that Mr. Mack entertained personal ill-will
Working up his own cases, and frequently did not report them to you at all until after conviction had been obtained, or until the case had gone to the Mixed Court? - No, that is not so at all.
  Did he report every case? - I think he did report nearly every case.  He saw me at nine o'clock every morning and again at twelve, or 4 or 5 in the afternoon and again between 7 and 8, and very often after dinner between 9 and 10.  He had lots of opportunities, and he always spoke to me about the cases he had in hand, and sometimes he would stop me on the Maloo.
  You did not know that he carried through a great many cases without reporting to you? If he did that, he neglected his duty.
  You know he did that always under Mr. Penfold? - No, and I do not think it is true.
  Do you remember saying that he had your complete confidence, and that he could do as he liked in these matters? - No, I did not say he could do as he liked; I told him I put confidence in him, and wished to do so.
  Did you not tell him that in consequence of that you allowed him to go on as he had done? - No, not to go on acting as he had done.
  To use his own expression, to act without consulting you? - I do not know that he did that; he says he did.
  Mr. Drummond then went through the rules which Mack was alleged to have broken, and asked the witness if he had pointed out to Mack his infraction of these rules.  In reference to a rule which stated that no petition should be forwarded to the Municipal Council except through the Capt. Superintendent, Mr. Drummond asked the witness if he called the charge a petition?
  Witness - No, I do not call it a petition, but I suppose you might have a petition in words as well as in writing.
  Does it not refer to a written petition? - Yes, I think it does.
  Does it not refer to a petition about his pay or something of that sort; it does not refer to his duties does it? - I should say a petition in writing, for promotion, or something of that sort.
  Mr. Drummond - That is just Mr. Mack's definition.
 Mr. Drummond then referred to the regulation as to members of the Force utterly departing from the truth.  He asked if it was carried out strictly in the Police Force?
  Witness - If we find it out we do.
  You dismiss the man directly? - If we find it out. It is one of the chief duties of a policemen; you ought to know that.
  And you think Mr. Mack broke that rule? - Yes.
  Did you ever tell him so - I do not know that I did or that I did not.
  You cannot say that you did? - And I cannot say that I did not.
  Do you mean to say that if Mr. Mack came to you for advice as to how to carry out his work in working up a case you would have advised and directed him? - Very often I could, because two heads are better than one; but as far as the detail of work goes, perhaps not.
  Yes, when both heads are equally experienced but not where one is not.  Do you think you could have given him advice? - Sometimes.
  And very often you could not? - Very often I could not.
   Re-examined:-
  Mr. Robinson - You were asked whether you knew anything about Cameron's employing a native detective to collect a bad debt. What were the fact s about that?
  Witness - As far as I know, they were these:- It appears that Dr. Fisher performed some operation on a Chinaman, and could not get his money, and at the same time he suspected his Shroff.  He came to Mr. Cameron and asked him if he would be kind enough to find out where the man lived in order to see if his shroff had collected the money.  Mr. Cameron said he would do what he could in the matter.  He turned to one of the detectives, gave him a photograph of the man, and said, "I want you to find out where this man is." He said, "It is not a police business; I do not want you to arrest him." The detective found the man in some hotel; he asked the detective what he wanted.  The detective told him, and he replied, "Is that all? I have never received any account from Dr. Fisher, but I will pay you the money, and you can take it to him."  Dr. Fisher gave the detective $10 for his trouble in the matter.
  Before that was given you were consulted? - Yes, by Mr. Cameron.  He told me, and I said, "Do not you think it is rather a large reward for collecting $75?"
  Then you sanctioned it? - Yes, I never refused to allow them to earn a little money.
  My friend asked you a number of questions about Mr. Mack's conducting his case without reference to you.  Supposing you had been aware of it, would you have called upon him for an explanation of his conduct? - Yes, I should.
  And told him he was doing what he should not? - Yes, but I do not believe he did carry out any cases without reporting to me.
  No important cases at any rate? - No important cases certainly.
  My friend asked you whether you had told Mack that he had broken certain rules; do you not suppose that all the Inspectors in the Force can understand the rules and know whether they were breaking them or not? - Certainly.
  Mr. ALABASTER -You looked at that memo of yours of the 16th June in the light of an order that he had to obey?
  Witness - Yes.
  That time when Inspector Mack was insolent to you, were you long together or was it a five minutes' interview?- I think it lasted some 10 or 15 minutes.
  Were there any special words? - His manner altogether was offensive, and in going away he said, "This matter will have to go before the Council and you had better be there."
  Nothing more than that? - No, very little more than that, but his manner during the whole time was offensive altogether.  It was not the manner of a subordinate officer to his superior.
  Was it a deliberate manner, or was it the rough manner of a man not accustomed to discipline? - Well, it was more what I should call swagger than anything else.
  More in manner than anything else? - More in manner than anything else, and calling upon Inspector Kluth to take down this and take down that.
  Who was present? - The Chief Inspector, Inspector Kluth, Mr. Mack and myself.
  What was Mr. Kluth doing there? He was there as a witness.  I wanted to suspend Mr. Mack in the presence of witnesses and I asked Mr. Kluth to take down in writing what took place.
  It was in reference to the memo he was making that Mack said, "Take that down Kluth"? - No that was made afterwards.
   Then what was it in reference to? - He said "take a note of that" but it was not in reference to a memo.  Kluth was making for me, because it was before Mack came that I asked Kluth to take it down in writing.
  Then why did Mack make use of those expressions? - Did he know that Kluth was there as a witness? - Oh, yes.
The case was then adjourned till next day at 2 o'clock.
4th September.
  OBALDO KLUTH was next called.  In answer to Mr. Robinson he said - I am an Inspector in the Shanghai Police.  I remember the interview in Captain McEuen's office on the night of the 16th June, when Mack a suspended.  I was present during the whole of the interview.  I was ordered by Captain McEuen to bring Mack into the office.  I remained there.  Captain McEuen, Chef Inspector Cameron, Inspector Mack and myself were present.  I made a memo afterwards of what took place, as far as I recollected it.  We were all present there when Captain McEuen said he had a very painful duty to perform, namely to suspend Inspector Mack for disobedience of police orders - that he had placed the greatest trust and confidence in him, and all he expected in return was that he should be properly assisted by all his inspectors to carry out his duties properly.  He went on to say that it was the duty of any member of the Force to report to him direct, and not to go to any members of the council, which was going over his head.  Mack then asked what order he had broken, and Captain McEuen said that it was an order from the council that was in print, and he should know t.  Mack said he had never seen such an order, nor was he supplied with such.  Mack then asked if Cameron was also suspended.  The reply he got was, no, Captain McEuen did not think Cameron had broken any police regulations.  The accusation against Mr. Cameron of embezzlement was a matter for the Council to enquire into.
  Did Mack make any remarks about Cameron's not being suspended? - Oh, yes; he said if Mr. Cameron was not also suspended, he would be debarred from taking the steps he would like to take.
  Did he say anything about the Captain's right to suspend Mr. Cameron? - He said that Captain McEuen had no right whatever to suspend him without suspending Inspector Cameron, and if he knew anything about it, he would not act in the manner he did.
  Now, in what sort of manner were these remarks made? - I should say disrespectful.
Were they made in a manner which you would use? - I would never speak in that way.  He frequently interrupted Captain McEuen, pointing with his finger and saying to me, "I want you to remember this; you will be called bye and bye.  Don't forget."  And he came into the office with his hat in his hand, swinging it about, and he took a pencil and paper out of his pocket and took notes.  r do not know whether that is disrespectful; I should consider it so.
  Have you ever heard the plaintiff make use of what you considered improper language concerning both the Superintendent and Mr. Cameron?
  Witness - Where? In the office?
  Mr., Robinson - Anywhere.
  Witness - Oh, yes; frequently.
  To you? - To me, and to others in my presence.
  Supposing that you had a complaint to make against a superior officer, what would you do? - I would go to the Captain Superintendent.
  Do you consider that would be your duty? - Most distinctly.
  Cross-examined by Mr. Drummond -
  Did Captain McEuen tell you what to put in your statement? - Not a word, never said a word.  I should think he was under the impression that as Inspector Mack took notes there at the time, I could probably be called upon, and after Mack was gone, he told me I had better make a memorandum of what had taken place. He said, "There is paper and a pen." I took the paper and pencil and wrote it down as fast as I could, because I knew Cat. McEuen intended to go round and instruct the inspectors about their duties, as Inspector Mack was suspended.
  Have you ever been on bad terms at any time with Mr. Mack?
  Witness - Why do you want me to answer that question?
  Mr. Drummond - I should like to know.   It is very interesting.  Were you on friendly terms with Mr. Mack or not?
  Witness - Well, I have been on intimate terms with him for some time, and later on again.  It was only for a very short interval that we were not on very good terms.
  Oh, there was an interval in which you were not on very friendly terms? When was that interval? - When I was stationed at the Hongkew Station.
  Was it during that time that this interview otok place?  I do not understand you.
  Was it during his time that the interview took place when you were present with Captain McEuen and Mr. Mack? Was that during the time when you were not on good terms with him? - No, sir. I was on speaking terms with him all the time.
  But not particularly friendly? - Well, I confess I was very careful with Mr. Mack, because I knew his character from the very day he joined.
  You did not like his character? - I did not say I do not like hm.  I used to speak to him, and kept my opinion to myself.
  You thought it would be useful afterwards? - No.  If Mr. Mack had not brought any action I should have thought nothing of it; but it is always well to avoid a man when you fancy you know his character.
  Is that the sort of feeling you have towards him now? - Nothing at all.  I only speak the truth of what took place in the Captain Superintendent's office.
  And I only ask you, what is your general feeling towards him now? - Nothing particular against hm.
  Nothing particular against him, and nothing particular for him? - No, he is not of the Police Force and I have nothing further to do with him.  I should not keep him company.
  Mr. Drummond - No, he is out of the Force?
  Witness - I believe every one knows his character who has had anything to do with him for any length of time.
  M. Drummond - We will not inquire into your character.  You have expressed your opinion about his demeanour on that occasion?
  Witness - Yes.
  And you furnished Captain McEuen with your mem at the time? - Immediately afterwards.
  That memo cannot be found?
  Mr. Robinson - It is my fault; I mislaid it. I know the substance of it.
  Mr. Drummond - That will not do.  I cannot ask him any questions about t.
  (To Witness) - You have known Mack a long time and have seen him very often in communication with the Captain Superintendent have you not?
  Witness - Yes.
     Do you not think his manner is rather rough on an occasion? - Well, whenever I have seen him talking to the Captain Superintendent - and I have seen him very frequently - he was always speaking in a kind of whisper, because that is the way he speaks.
  Do you think that is respectful;? - I thought he always had something to communicate to the captain; something he wanted no one to hear.
  Have you heard him speak commonly in a roughish style to the Captain Superintendent or any of the officers? - No. not at all.
  Can you remember any particular words that he used on the night that you consider very disrespectful? - Well, when he told the Captain Superintendent that he wanted an answer, that he had better obey, and that it would be better for him if he was there, I think that was disrespectful.
  You consider that very bad? - I think it is disrespectful, speaking to a superior officer I ntat way?  Whether he was right or wrong, I consider, had nothing to do with it.
  Now you have given reasons to Mr. Robinson why you think he was very disrespectful; one was that he came in with his hat on his head.
  M. Robinson - He never said that to me.
  Mr. Drummond - Did you say that?
  Witness - Ys.
  And took notes? Yes, that was after when Capt. Supt. had commenced speaking and told him he was suspended from duty.
  In your opinion that was very disrespectful, to come in with his hat in his hand? - Well, he always had his hat in his hand, but generally behind his back.
  Would it have been disrespectful if he had had it on his head?  No.
  Where was the disrespect? = Well, he waved it about.
  Mr., Drummond - When Mr. Robinson asked you what the disrespect was, you only said he came in with his hat in his hand.
  Witness - I believe I said he waved it about.
  Mr. Drummond - Well, my recollection is you simply said he had his hat in his hand.
  Witness - Well I meant waving it about.
  Mr. ALABASTER - He said waving the hat about.
  Mr. Drummond - I ask pardon then. I suppose swinging it about was the disrespect?
  Witness - Well, it is not the conduct of an inferior to a senior officer.
  Mr. Drummond - Not in highly educated circles, I suppose?
  Witness - Not in the Police Force.
  And taking notes, was not that in your opinion very disrespectful? - Well, seeing the short time he was there I do not think it was necessary or called for, because I do not think he had a bad memory.  I think he has a very good one.
  Mr. Drummond - Well, I am glad he has got something in your opinion.
  [Witness?] - Do you think it was disrespectful, seeing that you were there as a member of the Force able to give testimony afterwards in favour of Captain McEuen, and there was no one there on his part, and he was there and then suspended from the Police, that everything that occurred there was of great importance to him, do you think it was disrespectful for him to take notes for his own protection?
  M. Robinson - He said it was necessary.
  Witness - I think if I had been in his place and the Supt. had told me I was suspended I would have said, "Very good; is there anything more?" and if he had said, "That will do" I would have gone out and very likely employed a lawyer (possibly you) if I thought I was wrongly treated.
  You would have taken no steps to guard yourself against any misapprehension as to what took place at that interview? I should not have said anything there.
  Our report will be continued in our next issue.
Shanghai, 9th Sept., 1885.
The Court sat at two o'clock, when the President read the following
JUDGMENT.
In re ARTHUR MACK, plaintiff,
against
THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SHANGHAI, defendant.
  After a careful consideration of the written and oral testimony, and the arguments of Counsel submitted in this case, the Court had found:
  That is Court has no desire to interfere with the necessary control of the Municipal staff by the Council, and is unable to approve the conduct of the plaintiff, it is of opinion that taking into consideration the various circumstances pleaded in mitigation, it is hardly just to dismiss him without some recognition of his services.
  The Court therefore awards:-
  First, that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of one thousand Mexican dollars in full satisfaction of all claims, including costs of Counsel.
 Second, that the defendants pay the costs of the court in this action amounting to one hundred and twenty Mexican dollars.
(Signed)
LUHRSEN, H.I.G.M.'s Consul-General and Senior Consul.
CHAS. ALABASTER, H.B.M. Acting Consul General.
G. H. SCIDMORE, U.S. Vice Consul General.

 

Source: North China Herald, 19 September 1885


MACK v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.
(COMMUNICATED)
  The judgment of the Court, brief as it is, is still open to severe criticism. Take first the statement that the Court "has no desire to interfere with the necessary control of the Municipal staff by the Council," etc.  Such a statement is as wrong as it can be from every point of view.  The Council is a body authorized to raise a large revenue by means of rates and taxes levied on the public.  It has to employ a large number of servants, and pay them with public money, and it has to carry on by means of its own servants, and by mans of contracts, the arrangements for draining, policing, lighting, and all the other matters that are considered necessary for a civilized government.  It is in duty bound to use the power which is vested in it to compel people to pay the rates and taxes due, and to sue servants or contactors for beaches of agreement or contract.  It is composed of human beings only, and therefore is liable to err, to commit injustice, and make all the blunders tha humanity, collectively as well as individually, is liable to.  Why on earth, then, should it be above law, or should a Court express the smallest reluctance to entertain and consider thoroughly and impartially every claim which is made against it? Assuming that the Court does not intend to imply that it feels timidity in using the powers vested in it for this purpose, the only possible meaning of such a statement can be, that from sheer laziness, it does not want to be bothered with work of this sort.
  The work that the council has to do is the ordinary daily business of life on a large scale.  It is able to afford the services of a legal adviser paid annually to advise it constantly at no extra expense.  It has a large staff of trained and experienced servants to guide it constantly; and when any difficult arises it has nine business heads to consider and decide what to do.  Are not all these enormous advantages over any single individual, who thinks that he has been treated illegally or unfairly, and is willing to meet the expense and risk of a public trial in order to get what he considers justice? Again, it must be remembered that the court was created solely for this purpose, and that no other tribunal exists whereby the council can be compelled to do justice when I has done injustice. It is absolutely necessary that all persons who undertake service with the Council, or make contracts with, or sell goods to it, should feel that in regard to the remedies of breaches of faith or wrongdoing of any kind, there is a Court in which to seek redress, just as ready to entertain and investigate thoroughly and impartially any alleged shortcoming on the part of the Council as the Court of their nationality would be to do the same if the Council should bring a suit against them.  Civilization is understood today assets that no one should be above the law, and that all should be equal before the law.  Great Corporations and Municipal Councils are always inclined to be to autocratic, and to misuse the enormous powers and advantages they possess over individuals, and the proper tendencies of Courts nowadays, is, not to start with a strong prejudice in their favour, but, if anything, to assist the obviously weaker side in obtaining the fullest examination of an alleged injustice, and the completest remedy if alleged injustice is proved. If the Court caries out the principle now foreshadowed, no one can deal with the Council on an equal footing in future; and as to taking service with the council, the addition to the enormous preponderance of power on the part of the Council will be so great as to render such service little better than slavery.
  The Court appears to regard itself rather as a Board of Arbitrators than a Court. What right has it to do so?  There is not a sentence or a word in the article of the Land Regulations creating the Court justifying such a statement.  When the Council takes proceedings, it sues a man "in Court;" why should the man not be able to do the same to it? The obvious intention of the article of the Land Regulations was to give every one this right.  It is not laid down that the law of any particular country is to govern the Court, and the Court is therefore one of natural equity and good conscience.  It should be bound by no technicalities, but be ever ready to listen to quotations of analogous cases from civilized Courts, and expressions of views of authorities on questions of principle; and lastly, it should be above all things as ready as any other Court to entertain suits, and as earnestly desirous to do prompt, substantial, and thoroughly impartial justice to all suitors.  Arbitration implies the agreement of the parties to the election of the person or persons composing the tribunal. There is no such agreement here.  The Court is appointed by law quite independently of the parties.
  The XXVIIth article, which creates the Court, says that the Council shalll "incur the obligations which private defendants have in proceedings at law or suits, in equity commenced against them" &c., &c. There is no provision for, or contemplation of, an appeal, and no such thing exists, as a "Court of Minsters" at Peking.
  The Municipal Council ae the Great Unpaid of Shanghai.  By lowering the sense of responsibility in regard to the execution of public duties, and making individuals feel that it is almost hopeless to expect to get equal justice if they are unjustly treated by the Council, the whole tone of the government of the place will be lowered.  Less despotism, less secrecy, and prompt and equal justice to all, would do a great deal of good to the true interests of all dwellers in Shanghai.
  I was mentioned in the course of the case that the Captain Superintendent of Police sits regularly with the Watch Committee.  He is thus a tenth member of Council, and, being a permanent official, it is easy for him to obtain such a predominant influence in his own department that he can become a complete autocrat.  It would be far better that he should simply hand in his report, answer any questions that the members may have prepared beforehand, and then retire at once; or else only attend meetings when specially requested to do so in regard  some unusual business.  If it is desirable that there should be a permanent official, besides the Secretary, present at any Council or Board meetings, it is undoubtedly the legal adviser, who, if he was kept conversant with the Council's business generally, and consulted on all important matters, might prevent the commission of many blunders.  We want a reorganization of the Council and its method of working; but Heaven forfend that it should be carried out upon the lines of the so-called re-organization of the Police!
  As to the Police: it is known that eight more men are going to take flight shortly; and now, when thy have learnt from the evidence of those in highest authority what absolutely despotic power is vested in the Captain Superintendent, their determination will only be confirmed.  The Captain Superintendent endeavours to arrest men who are members of the Force but who seek more hospitable shores, and to bring them back by force.  In this he showed his utter ignorance of his powers and his duties.  The men have simply civil contracts with the Council, and if they choose to depart they cannot be arrested; and if they are, they can bring actions for assault against those who arrested them.  Thy can be sued by the Council for breach of their agreements, but that gives no right to summary arrest.  Then supposing that they could be rightfully arrested, what is the value to the police of a policeman who is so dissatisfied that he prefers to run away?  He is clearly worthless as a Guardian of public order.  It seems to be becoming plain that the present government is so incapable of managing European Policemen that they will be allowed to disappear, causing an enormous loss of public money, and that soon Shanghai will have nothing but a Sikh Police Force, and a few European Inspectors.

 

Source: North China Herald, 25 September 1885
 

THE LATE COUNCIL CASE.
THERE must be something radically wrong in the deliberative methods of the Municipal Council when such correspondence as that sent to us by Mr. Drummond is even possible.  The Council has, and can have, no excuse whatever for not having sent on a cheque for the amount named by the Court of Consuls the day after the decision was delivered.  Whatever may have been the council's opinion of that decision, it was bound to carry it out at once - just as much bound as any individual pleader before the Supreme Court would have been bound under similar circumstances. To fail in this obvious duty was an act of disrespect towards the Court, and it was none the less an act of injustice, we might almost say of spite, towards the man who had become entitled to it.  .  .  .   [continues.]

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School