trusted subordinates well those
3. He relied on the Auditor to check his receipts.
He ought not to have done so in the face of despatch of 17270. 90. But here his nowad
the
I ventured again! WARAN fault is my
and in a sense the outcome of
He felt he was looked after by the job?
there had been no auditor "hiked up iù
say, intelligible
the new System
• by an expert.
If he
vay well to say greater that this ought not simply
human nature would probably have taken
It is all to be the case, but it is
and some allowance must be made on call.
that ground.
however Whatever may be said in extenuation
M. Mitchell Innes negligence, he neglected his duty.
The question then is how he should be punished.
I hope it will not be contemplated such severe measure as to suspension or dismissal. He is an active and capable young officer who has made a slip but who has plenty of good service in him, and such a step would be out of all proportion to the offence.
He was not the only one to blame, and ultimately
he was clearly at fault in this instance.
To transfer him, except to a capacity much inferior, would be a reward not a punishment. To degrade him or to fine him like the amount lost in Hong Kong would cripple his usefulness to the community.
I think he should be severely reprimanded and made to pay $1000 (less than £200) to be paid in convenient instalments. It would be enough for him to feel but not enough, I hope, to impoverish him, and it could be inflicted without implying that a high officer shown to be at fault must by way of example as a subordinate officer be held responsive for such losses as occurred.
There are three more general points in this case which it may be well to notice.
1. It is not for me to criticise the new System, but it is right to point out that the result of a separate Treasurer