Mr Kinder prior to its submission to the Secretary State with other accounts amounting to £558: 2·0,
of
all of which were
discharged
in obedience to the instructions contained in
the letter of the 30th July 1864.
I have the honor to be,
Your most obedient servant,
WC Jaegerunt
Juday 8797
Mr. Roberson
I think it a satisfactory explanation. I have looked into this matter.
It is true that any payment on account of the expenses claimed by Mr Kinder & the Mint officers cannot be justified either by usage or by the terms of the usual agreements signed by them.
But the case is a special one. It was an unusual & may be dealt with as such.
Originally it was intended that the Mint Officers should be sent via the Cape which would have involved a cost of £800. Under these circumstances there would have been no incidental expenses. The vessel would have sailed from the London dock, landed the officials in Hongkong.
But the P&O on the application forwarded an offer to convey the Mint officials to the Colony for a sum of £1087 - being £250 within regular charges - The whole cost by this route (including the expenses claimed) was £1468 showing a saving of £332 from the overland route.
The proposal of the P&O was accepted, & the Mint Officers had every right to expect that they would not have to pay charges to which they would not have been liable if they had been sent via the Cape.
The Colony had to bear most of the expenses which owing to the alteration they incurred and the extra expenses might be considered.
On these grounds he asked for sanction of incidental expenses £48.9.
Mr Kinder's "baggage" is what he & his family were entitled to as passengers.
The judgment is simply the amount to be paid. W.R.