Page:Hyderabad in 1890 and 1891; comprising all the letters on Hyderabad affairs written to the Madras Hindu by its Hyderabad correspondent during 1890 and 1891 (IA hyderabadin1890100bangrich).pdf/100

 HYDERABAD, 4th April 1891.

The "Hyderabad Record" gave its readers to understand a few days ago that the Nizam's Government had, at the request of several officials, handed over to their solicitors all the issues of the "Hindu" containing Hyderabad letters and that 29 passages therein had been taken exception to. What the "Record's" sources of information were, I cannot say. But I hope, in the interests of the people which I have at heart, that the information is reliable, that the Government will let the officials who consider themselves grossly libelled by me in my weekly letters take me up for libel. I am as anxious as any bona fide Hyderabadi that the truth should be known about the by-no-means creditable ways of those in power, and that the British Resident should justify his existence here by efforts to save the land from utter ruination.

A most important judgment was passed by Mr. O. V. Bosanquet, on the 30th of March last. It was in Gallagher versus Gribble and Shapurjee which has attracted considerable attention, and has done the people an invaluable service by showing how a portion at least of public funds is spent by the men in power. The judgment quite sustains Dr. Bosanquet's reputation for honesty, straightforwardness, and keen-sightedness, and speaks in no faltering tone of the doings of the unscrupulous officialdom - of doings of which any man with a modicum of regard for himself ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Referring to the passage in a certain issue of the "Deccan Times" that Mr. Gallagher took objection to as charging him with dishonesty indirectly, Mr. Bosanquet says:

"It has therefore to be considered whether, in view of certain transactions of the complainant, which have been made known to the public by the medium of the Law Courts and the newspapers, such an imputation can be said to have lowered his character. The first of these transactions relates to the Rs. 2,400 alluded to above which, according to the complainant's own

page 92