Colonial Despatches

Mr Elliot
I infer from the account of this discreditable business that Mr Cameron—the late Chief Justice—mixed himself up with the late Registrar, Mr Williams, in pecuniary transactions. I think it disgraceful & a neglect of duty on the part of Sir Jas Douglas that he did not report to the S. State the facts contained in these Papers. Had he done so the decision upon the Ch: Justices' Pension Act might have been different.

Mr Williams has absconded & there is nothing we can do with him. But I think Mr Cameron deserves another severe despatch reproving him for admitting Mr Williams to practise as an Attorney after it had been made clear that he had been dealing improperly with public money. I have no doubt that the local bar & the public knew all these factors but for various reasons & interests maintained silence. Governor Kennedy has, ever since his assumption of the Govt been a sort of political "Calcraft" in a den of thieves.

I annex the drafts of Mr Cardwells two last despes on the ill doing of the Judge in the Probate Court that he may see what he said on that point.

Mr Cardwell
Sir F. Rogers investigated the earlier reports on this subject. The constant disclosure of malpractices in Vancouver under the old regime are indeed discreditable.

Mr Blackwood
I shd like to see the papers respg the recent investigation of Mr Williams' delinquencies.

1. It wd seem that Mr Williams was only required by the Supreme Court to produce the money entrusted to him when it was wanted—no rules being laid down respectg custody. That he kept an account at Macdonald's Bank into wh he paid his official receipts & out of which he paid all his official payments—that he overdrew this account & endeavoured to satisfy the banker by placing in his hands—as the banker says by way of security, but as he says merely by way of deposit—an unendorsed official cheque (to order) for $3020, that this led to enquiry, in the course of wh Judge Cameron intervened & recovered from the bank the cheque wh as it happened the Registrar had no business to retain either officially or privately.

Mr Williams was dismissed: But was then admitted to practise by the C.J. The bar protested—but with what effect does not appear.

I do not see that there is anything to be done beyond referring to the dphes of 18 & 19 Augt.

George Hunter Cary to W.A.G. Young, Colonial Secretary, 10 April 1863, providing detailed explanation of the circumstances whereby "the Registrar of the Court raised money for his own purposes upon a check received by him in his Official capacity."

Alexander Watson, Treasurer, to Colonial Secretary, 21 May 1863, forwarding copy of a "Report by the Commissioners appointed by His Excellency to enquire into certain charges against Thomas G. Williams, Registrar of the Supreme Court together with the minutes of the Commission."

Report, as noted above, concluding that the charge against Williams had been proved, dated 21 May 1863, signed by Alexander Watson, E. Graham Alston and Robert Ker.

Minutes of the Commission, as noted above (fifteen pages).

Young to Chief Justice Cameron, 29 May 1863, conveying the verdict of the commission and advising that the governor "has confirmed the suspension of Mr Williams and directs that he be discharged from the Public Service."

Young to Cameron, 16 June 1863, forwarding instructions from the governor that his recent appointment of Williams as an attorney and solicitor of the Supreme Court "be forthwith rescinded" in view of the circumstances of his dismissal from the public service.

W.M. Tyrwhitt Drake to Young, 18 June 1863, forwarding letters recently submitted to the Acting Attorney General and the Chief Justice protesting the recent admittance of Williams to practise in the Supreme Court of the colony.

Copy, Drake, Pearkes and Dennis to D.B. Ring, Acting Attorney General, no date, protesting the admittance of Williams to the Supreme Court in view of his recent discreditable performance in the public service.

Drake, Pearkes and Dennis to Cameron, no date, protesting the admittance of Williams, on the grounds of his lack of qualifications, his recent dismissal from the public service, and the unorthodox manner in which the appointment took place.

Draft reply, Cardwell to Kennedy, No. 50, 25 September 1865.