CH. I.] REPORT OF THE INDIAN HEMP DRUGS COMMISSION, 1893-94. 13

prefaces the volumes of evidence appended to the report. The evidence of all
these witnesses is contained in the appendices.

The number of persons or associations who submitted written statements of
their views in response to the Commission's invitation was extremely limited. In
most cases their names appeared in the list of witnesses selected by Local Gov-
ernments and Administrations, and they submitted detailed answers to the Com-
mission's questions in which their views were fully set forth. In their cases the
preliminary written statements, which were not intended to be treated as evidence,
but were meant, as it were, to serve as an introduction to the Commission, have
not been published, and only the written answers to the questions and the oral
examination (if any) has been published. These will be found incorporated in
the appendices containing the evidence. In the few cases in which answers
to the questions were not furnished, the statements themselves have been
treated as evidence, and have been published with the oral examination when such
was made.

The evidence: Method of treat-
ment of—

16. The Commission have given a liberal interpretation to the term "evidence,"
and have not required that the persons giving evidence
should of necessity actually appear before them. To
facilitate the collection of information, a series of 70 questions framed by the
Commission was placed in the hands of the witnesses, or of the majority of them,
and the written answers to these questions form the bulk of the evidence before the
Commission. Also, as explained above, written statements, whether following the
general line of the questions or not, which were from time to time submitted by
persons or by associations who either did not care to answer the questions in
detail or had no opportunity of doing so, have been accepted and treated as
evidence.

In admitting to the record these answers to questions and written state-
ments, the Commission have not held it necessary that the writers should come
before them. The system followed was to summon, or request the attendance
of, only those persons whom, after a perusal of their written papers, the Com-
mission thought it desirable to examine orally. The papers of those whom
it was not considered necessary to examine orally were at once admitted to
the record. In summoning certain witnesses the Commission were generally
influenced by the fact that their papers contained statements as to facts or
expressed opinions which would be further elucidated if the witness had an oppor-
tunity of explaining them verbally before the Commission. It was not con-
sidered necessary to summon every witness whose evidence seemed to require to
be tested or elucidated by oral examination: where several witnesses gave evid-
ence of precisely the same character, it was deemed sufficient to select only
some as representatives to be summoned. It was obviously impossible within
reasonable time to cross-examine all witnesses. Other witnesses were sum-
moned, not because their papers expressed any views which themselves
required sifting, but because the Commission had reason to believe that these
witnesses might, either from their position or from any other cause, be able to give
further information than that contained in their papers. In orally examining the
witnesses, the Commission did not take them through the whole range of their
inquiries. The oral examination was almost entirely confined to those points in
the written paper which required further elucidation, or to the subjects on which

                                                                                                          4