Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/75

 offence consisted in his having stood in the way of his two accusers, in their attempts to procure their pardons. For it was through his great local know ledge, that all attempts, to throw discredit upon the conviction of the first had been defeated; and it was he, whose translation of the books and papers of the other convict, Mah Chow Wong, had armed Mr. May with the means of withstanding the shameless efforts, in which Mr. Caldwell and his associated Executive Councillors were then (October, 1858) engaged, to make out a plausible pretext for the pardon of the last-named convict.

And yet, there is one incident, connected with Mah Chow Wong, on which the Commission have come to two findings of a most remarkable character—too remarkable, indeed, not to deserve to be noticed together, and under one separate head, in the present classification.

They say, that "they think it unnecessary to make any other observation, regarding the charge [against Mr. Caldwell], of audaciously denying, that the books and papers of the pirate's Hong contained any evidence of Mah Chow Wong's guilt, of having deceived the Executive Council in the inquiry had, relative to Mah Chow Wong (!), and of being convicted of falsehood by Mr. May—than that there is no evidence of Mr. Caldwell having deceived the Executive Council." From which, I presume, we are to infer, that there is evidence of the truth of all the other particulars contained in the recited charge; as to which, however, there is no finding at all; "further observation" being "unnecessary".

And yet, in the very next page, they say, they do think it not "unnecessary," and, by way of continua-