1
8.
clerk was dismissed from the staff of the British Bection
of the Kowloon Canton Railway with effect from the 1st day,
7919 in connection with a shortage of $2,768.11 in the Railway
cash. The whole shortage was recovered from the sureties and
ir d'Almada e Castro was prosecuted; but the charge was after-
wards withdrawn,as the Attorney General advised that there was
no possibility of proving a criminal charge: (Conf. 0.5.0.
2596/10).
124
Commander Taylor, therefore, appears to have been
fortunate in losing the doubtful benefit of Mr d'Almada e Castro'e
services.
يل
In paragraph 5 Commander Taylor also mention/ir Cordeiro as
another efficient Portuguese clerk who was removed from his de-
partment. I find that Mr Cordeiro was transferred to be 3rd clerk
in the Colonial Secretary's Office with effect from the 1st April,
1901. He died on the 14th August, 1901. Therefore had he
remained in the Harbour Department, Commander Taylor would not
long have enjoyed the benefit of his services.
In paragraph @ Commander Taylor refers to the case of Mr
1lves who was charged before Executive Council with culpable
begligence in the examination of Chinese smigrants.
The charges
Bgainst r Alves wore the result of inquiries made by Chief De-
tective Inspector Hanson and by Ar desser (Acting Registrar Gon-
bral): they were as follows:-
(a) neglecting to satisfy himself that the Chinese emigrants
per 8.8. "Lai Shang" which sailed on the 13th October, 1903 had in fact been duly lodged in the Chung Pat Boarding House as alleged by the Keeper of that Boarding House;
(b) neglecting to satisfy himself that the chinose emigrants
per 3.8. "Kan Shane" which sailed on the 28th October, 1903 had in fact been duly lodged in the Tai Wo Boarding House as alleged by the Keeper of the said Boarding House; (c) neglecting to make adequate inquiry as to whether the emigranta alleged to have come from the said Boarding Housee, were or were not contract labourers.
onzandor Taylor personally assumed responsibility for the acts
ading to those charges (0.8.0.6485/03). The Executive Council
Ivised on 9th December, 1903 that there was not such a case againg