- 48 -
139
made in response to the application: was returned, it was
the shroff and the permit issued.
iven to
So that it was not even in the shroff's custody in the intervening
two or three days?
No, in my own personal custody. That was done after consultation
wita en officer of the Treasury.
Referance
has been made to two Chinese ladies whom we sa. wita the shroffsi
were there any others who were unsecured in the office i
A.
Their business was not to nudle cash at all.
It was not at any time'?
A.
Cases.
·
As far as I can recollect they were not authorised to handle cash
Their business was to assist the shroffs in producing from the strong
room documents for which cash was tendered. I should have added one
point to the question before that. That was the first case when the
cashier at my desk was allowed to hande Cash. There were two other
First of all when we switowed over from what is called tne
old form to the new document and the suroffs were being occupied in
issuing new forms or docw.nts, for which no sepurate miscellaneous receipt is required, in order to avolu confusion I decided vextend
the acceptance of the fees for the old document to the lady cushier; then when the question arose of refunding deposits, as i had not
sufficient shroffs available to undertake this work, and it could
not otherwise be dealt with by an officer unless secured, I hac ed
to her
ith to be done in my own room and under my direct supervision.
This is a different point. You will remember that Mr. Mki dlebrook
in his scheme stressed the advisability of getting as many permits
as possible issued before this came into force?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you have tolu us throughout your memorandum that you dia your
utmost to get permits issued well in advance?
A.
Yes.
I am tolu now that the first notification which the shipping
companies received about the issue of permits was dated 20th Jecember
1