238
(
/19888.
date of the bill and that of paying into the bank indicates that
the shroff held the money during the interval.
This is not so:
several reminders are frequently necessary before a bill is paid.
The Auditor will find that equal, if not greater, discrepancies
occur even now, when it is not possible for the shroff to hold
over any money.
8.
Charge (e) That the shroff paid into the bank
only every other day instead of daily.
As I have already stated, (paragraph 7 of my letter
of 16 June 1911), the shroff was not primararily a Government
servant, but was shroff to the Sailor's Home. His services
were at the disposal of the Government every other day only, so
that it was not possible for me to employ him for the purpose every day, and I had nobody else with the necessary qualifica-
-tions and security. I suggested an alteration of the system vi
very shortly after I became Harbour Master, but was over-ruled.
9. Charge (f) That I failed to put in writing a
certain order which I issued verbally.
I can conceive no reason for giving written orders
other than that to ensure that there shall be no question as to
their having been received by those to whom they are addressed.
In the present case there is no such question. I fail to see,
therefore, how such failure affects the matter.
which I do not
that I
10. But granting,
can be held to blame on any, or all, of there counts, not one of
them affects the issue in any way. No amount of supervision
on my part could have prevented the thief from stealing the money, any more than any amount of supervision can, even now,
prevent his successor from doing the same thing with the money
he is sent to pay into the bank, more especially on Saturday,
when the hour at which he arrives at the bank nearly synchro-
-nises with that of the sailing of many river and other steam-
-ers
...