Murdoch to Elliot (Assistant Under-Secretary)

I have to acknowledge your letter of 6th instant inclosing one from
Mr Pemberton, the Surveyor General of British Columbia, in answer to
a charge brought against him by Mr Langford.

2. The charge was that Mr Pemberton had represented to Mr Langford
that certain land which Mr Langford applied to buy had been sold to
the Puget Sound Company—when it had not been so sold—and had
offered in proof of his statement to produce his Books to show that
it had been paid for.

3. Upon this case I furnished a Report on the 4th ultimo. As
regards the statement that the Land had been sold to the Puget Sound
Company it appeared to me that although it was not precisely accurate
Mr Pemberton had reason to believe it substantially true. The Land
had been applied for by the Company & a negociation for its purchase
was in progress—and in previous similar transactions the Company had
never failed to complete their purchase. In regard, however, to the
statement that Mr Pemberton offered to produce his books to show
that the Land had not only been sold but paid for, which though
supported by the evidence of Dr Wallace, Assist Surgeon of
H.M.S. "Satellite", was disbelieved by the Governor and contradicted
by the Assistant Surveyor who was present, but of which no notice was
taken in the answer made by Mr Pemberton before he left the Colony,
I suggested that Mr Pemberton should have an opportunity of offering
any observations he might desire upon that point.

4. Mr Pemberton accordingly now points out the probability that the
memory of the Assist Surveyor who was familiar with the subject
would be more accurate than that of Dr Wallace to whom it was
strange—that the former declares that he stated the Land to be
"sold" only, and that Dr Wallace might easily after a lapse of 1 1/2
years confound this with a statement that it had been paid for—that
the Book which he offered to show Mr Langford must have been the
Official record in which the negociation with the Company would be on
record, and which he was in the habit of allowing interested persons
to examine—not the Cash Book which would have shown no entry on the
subject—and lastly he appeals to the entire absence of any motive
for misrepresentation on his part and to the previous characters of
himself and Mr Pearse as strong evidence of the improbability of the
charge.

5. There is of course great difficulty in deciding between two
directly contradictory statements from persons whose veracity there
is no reason to impeach. Looking, however, to the time which has
elapsed and to the circumstances under which the alleged conversation
took place, I think it is most likely that Dr Wallace was mistaken in
the words which he attributed to Mr Pemberton. Mr Pemberton's
explanation of his probable offer to show Mr Langford his Office
Books removes a great difficulty in understanding how the error
arose. The absence also of any motive on Mr Pemberton's part and
the silent acquiesence of Mr Langford during 18 months in what he
now represents as a serious grievance, must be taken into account in
deciding upon the probabilities of the case. Upon the whole I am of
opinion that Mr Pemberton's explanation upon the particular point
now under discussion is sufficient, and in respect to the more
important questions regarding the conduct of Mr Pemberton and the
Governor towards Mr Langford, I see no reason to alter the opinion
expressed in my report of 4th ultimo.