+
134 5)
checked the counterfoils of his receipt books with the en-
tries in the Shroff's Collection book before they were taken
by the Shroff to the Assistant Harbour Master for the latter's
daily check. He maintains that for the Shroff to have en-
tered up his collection book item by item consecutively would
have entailed confusion and unnecessary detail; and he fur ther
holds that the daily check by the Assistant Harbour Haster
coupled with the further check under taken at one time but
subsequently given up by lr, Chan Puli were reasonably adequate
precautions against peculation. Upon Commander Beckwith's
view it seems unnecessary for your Committee to express any
opinion beyond stating that it does not appear, not unnatu-
rally perhaps, that he had at any time appreciated that the
entries in the Shroff's Collection book were made in such a
manner as to shew on their face that r. Lenfestey was not
carrying out literally the terms of Government Order No. 315
(3).
With regard to Captain Taylor's views your Committee
is of the opinion that he should not have allowed any fancied
fear of confusion or heavy detail to permit him to remain
cognisant of a departure by r. Lenfestey from the letter of
the Government Order even though he thought that that officer
was carrying out its spirit; but here again your Committee
doubts very much whether the Harbour laster ever really ap-
preciated what he now says he clearly understood. As to
the daily check by the Assistant Harbour laster it need only
be added that it would have been an effective examination had
r. Lenfestey carried out fully his duties.
With regard to the alleged counter-check by
Chan Pui, your Committee is of the opinion that the examina-
tion conducted by him was in no sense intended as a check on
the accounts but was for other nurposes unconnected with the
subject of this enquiry, your Committee's conclusion on this point being completely borne out by the evidence of Commander
Beckwith.
8/-