657
that when he was appointed in 1892, his experience as Treasurer should be judged on his previous experience of Treasury work. It is clear that the dangerous system of allowing Clark to take charge of the rent roll and prepare the receipts for payments of rent to sequestrate receipts (which largely contributed to the facilitation of the fraud) was established by his predecessor.
That he was burdened with an incompetent staff, and was reluctant out of deference for their standing and length of service, to report to Government all the circumstances, including his letter of March 22nd 1892. The case should be judged not by the light of the obligations cast upon him by financial instruction No. 2, but by the light of the ordinary obligations that devolve upon a Treasurer, by the very nature of his office, in the absence of any special instructions. It should also, in my opinion, be judged on the basis of his having honestly, though mistakenly, entertained the view that he was not responsible for the safeguarding of Government moneys in his office. Further, it should be borne in mind that there has never been the faintest question of his personal integrity.