adhered to the statement, it would be impossible not to conclude that there had been either some extraordinary mistake or dishonesty in this office - as that by some mental aberration of the Officer who closed the mail they had been thrust or dropped into some rock or cranny (where they might perhaps be lying at this moment) instead of being placed in the bag.
But besides the very great improbability of such an occurrence, the course adopted by the Manila Office has not been such as to drive us to a far-fetched Explanation. First of all, the ordinary courtesy of returning the letter Bill to this Office is studiously avoided, and no communication is made to report the absence of a letter Bill. Yet a supplementary mail sent by the same steamer is duly acknowledged.
Then, when Enquiry is made, and duplicate letter Bill sent, the receipt of the mail and original Letter Bill is admitted, but the receipt of the Registered correspondence is denied. Nor is any reason alleged why attention was not called to so grave a discrepancy between the letter Bill and the contents of the mail.
Finally, the Manila Office...
Page 110