1
[ix]
37. Mr. MAY should have insisted on the Rent Roll of 1890 being at once balanced, as it was about 15 months in arrear when he took charge of the Office.
We are of opinion that he is mistaken when he says that Mr. NICOLLE referred to the Rent Roll of 1891.
38. We therefore find that the following persons have by neglect or omission of duty indirectly allowed the frauds to be committed :-
---
1. Mr. LISTER for authorizing ALVES to sign these receipts, for appointing a shroff who could not read English, and for not insisting on the books being balanced soon after the end of every year, especially as the matter was brought to his notice by the Auditor.
2. Mr. WODEHOUSE by neglect in not causing the Rent Rolls of 1887, 1888 and 1889 to be balanced in proper time and thus ascertaining what sums appeared as having been paid in and what amount had actually been received by the Treasury..
3. Mr. MITCHELL-INNES in not causing the Rent Roll of 1890 to be balanced, especially when his attention was called to it by Mr. NICOLLE. We are also of opinion that if ordinary supervision had been exercised by him, he would have discovered that ALVES was constantly receiving money direct from the public.
4. Mr. NICOLLE by not reporting to the Governor the fact that he had not been able to obtain the books properly balanced necessary for his auditing.
5. Mr. CARVALHO, chief clerk, &c. He ought to have exercised greater supervision over all the Clerks, and not have permitted such arrears in the keeping of the books.
6. Mr. MAY because he did not carry out Mr. NicOLLE's requirement as to
balancing the book.
7. The Audit department for the years 1884 to 1890.
39. With respect to the neglect of Mr. WODEHOUSE and Mr. MITCHELL-INNES mentioned is paragraph 38 we beg to remark that the gentlemen who have in turn filled the office of Treasurer do not seem to have appreciated the absolute necessity of balancing the books as being the only effective check, and they seem all to have relied on the Audit department.
The new Financial Instructions, dated 1891, distinctly say that the Treasurer's checks are to be independent of the Audit.
Mr. MITCHELL-INNES says that the Secretary of State's instructions do not agree with the Financial Instructions and that the Secretary of State had said that the Treasurer would have no auditing to do when the new Audit system came into force; that he--Mr. MITCHELL-INNES-Wrote a despatch pointing this out and stating that he could not be responsible for the checking of the receipts unless the Treasury staff was increased.
40. (d) The causes that rendered the defalcations possible and those that prevented their earlier detection.
As we have above set out these causes were the complete control given to ALVES over the receipt of money, without any check on him; the appointment of a shroff who could not read the contents of a receipt which he chopped; the non-balancing of the Rent Rolls of 1888 to 1892, and the unlimited confidence which the several heads of the Treasury and the Audit placed in Mr. ALVES.