Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/111

 Chinese evidence, as being, in his opinion, palpably favourable to Mr. Caldwell. But we now repeat, what the Chairman stated at the time of the reception of the protest, that we consider the Attorney General's complaint totally unfounded.

We have experienced great difficulty in our labours: First, from the nature, arrangement, and wording of the charges—some of which it appeared unnecessary, as it certainly was most distasteful to us to inquire into; Secondly, from the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence; and Thirdly, and especially from the refusal of the Attorney-General to act as accuser, or to recognise the charges as his charges. Under these circumstances, we considered it advisable to engage the services of Mr. Day to act as examiner, parties interested being informed that he would receive at his Chambers any information which it was intended to bring before the Commission. On the subject of our inquiry we report:

That charge 2, has been satisfactorily met and explained by Mr. Caldwell, though there existed strong primâ facie grounds for bringing it.

That charge 4 is not proved; but that there were grounds for bringing it.

That no proof whatever has been brought forward in support of charge 5.

That charge 14 is not proved as regards Mr. Caldwell himself, though it appears that Mrs. Caldwell has had transactions in land and houses for her sister since December last, when Mr. Caldwell became Licenser of Brothels; but that there is no evidence that Mr. Caldwell had any knowledge of such transactions.

That charge 15 has not been proved.

That no proof has been given in support of charge 16, but that there were grounds for bringing it.

That there is no proof whatever of charge 17, and that there were no sufficient grounds for bringing it.

That there were no grounds whatever for bringing charges 18 and 19.

That there were no grounds whatever for bringing charge 3.

That with regard to charge 6, a long and intimate connection