$720
but does not mention In Lead.
The latter no doubt held
in order to get the higher grade pension. This surely hardly worth while to ask his Price about this
viz: why he did not mention In Lead specially by name as the others
Remitendus
he did
Von though it is just doubtful whether
Lum to have
we retrospective
uncements?
Sir J. Hennessy does not condescend
to explain why
he did not submit
increase to
us
nor
for his
Deoli
does he express any regret or apology for leaving of the 28 February 1881, unanswered
till now.
I see from the Woo Where Book, just received, that Coloton has Price absconded but that Watts on their increased salaries, drawing according to late Price's scale.
a.a.D.
20/
We cannot refer to Price.
Put it like.
Get Jane
In Rond
M-Meache
RM 15711
20.
292
Lord Kimberley's despatch of 28 Feb:1881 (on 2978) "conveyed the approval of a definite pension", so that question must be regarded as settled.
I agree with M. Karson that the local Government dealt with the question in a very slow way.
I read these papers, Mr Bourdillon the Acting Surveyor General, in May 1878 represented that $720 was not sufficient to annex and secure & retain in the service qualified persons for the Public Work Department.
He recommended the introduction of the merit system, suggesting that a scale of salary rising from $720 to $1200 by increments of $40 would be adopted - as Colonial Engineer, the Surveyor General then acting