Enc. 2 to this desp? summed up in parr. 50-53 thereof.
M. Barradas was enabled to embezzle because "all the incidents connected with the Money Order business were allowed to be in his hands" rather than being properly overseen.
In Cameron, the Straits defalcation dealt with cheating to be the mode of operation. Though the mode of operation in the two cases happened differently, in both cases, the individuals involved were trusted so much that their inferiors thought it unnecessary to look after them.
I notice that two of the reported cases (in 12862/22, regarding the force in Hong Kong) highlighted that the precautions were not in place as they should have been. It was stated (h.20) in Enc. in 12062/22 that "Th. P. M. G. is to account for their collections weekly," or "paying in their collections whenever they exceed $100."
M. Travers says he was not aware of any such rule being opened (4. J of Enc. in 12867/89 and Jenc.). "All the accounts are now audited every month. There are no arrears" (par. 45 of Report within Often 3 months shows that Andish was more in arrear).
(As proposed on 13799) Write to Sw. as on Jep. 2-5, 13799, ask whether the security bond has been enforced (referring to Defalcation Feb. 1880, par. 20 of En. and Circular of 19). Observe as to the precautions mentioned in pres. Lage & send to A.O. extract from this drop (par. 4 only) & Encs. in original, together with copy of our reply for t13799.
(2) As to Mr. Travers' part in the case (see par. 52 of Report), I think he is less to blame than the late W. Lister. W. Travers followed the lax system long allowed by M. Lister, and there being no written rules, it was hard for him as locum tenens to see what went right.
I am disposed to think that his conduct in the matter ought not to be regarded as disqualifying him for the vacant Portmastership.