35
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19
Reference :-
C.O. 885
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
56
Glasgow, amounted to £277 12s. 3d.; my inspection fee was £11 2s. 1d. This is constructional work and was charged for as such, viz., four per cent., in accordance with
your authorisation dated 21st March, 1894.
Joists at Messrs. Dorman, Long, and Company's, Middlesbrough, value £19 6s., inspection charge £2 2s. These joists had to be inspected at Middlesbrough by a different Inspector to the one at Glasgow, necessitating travelling expenses, &c., and was therefore treated as a separate contract. Your sanctioned professional fee is "a minimum charge of £2 2s. for all inspections not realizing that amount when calculated at 24 per cent. on the cost of the work.". I therefore considered I was entitled to £2 2s.
There was a good deal of correspondence and time occupied in the examination of drawings, &c., for which no charge was made.
(C.A. 3608/98.) GENTLEMEN,
(I.)
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY to the CROWN AGENTS.
H. WAKEFIELD.
1
Colonial Secretary's Office, Singapore, June 9, 1898. WITH reference to your letter, No. 533, of the 19th April last, respecting the ironwork supplied to the Master Attendant's office in Singapore, I am directed to forward to you the enclosed copy of a Minute by the Colonial Engineer on the subject.
I have, &c.,
C. W. S. KYNNERSLEY,
Acting Colonial Secretary,
Straits Settlements.
MINUTE by the COLONIAL ENGINEER.
In the enclosed list I have marked, in red, Messrs. Macfarlane and Company's published rates of charge. These rates are distinctly stated in their published cata- logue to be the rates at which lots are delivered in Glasgow free of any other charges save packing.
2. I note that the rates in the list are a small advance on the rates as quoted in the catalogue, but owing to fluctuations in the price of labour and material, it is intelligible that they might vary from time to time.
3. The catalogue is designedly illustrated to enable purchasers the more readily to decide what is required; the illustration is given and the price quoted, and so long as the indent clearly specified what is wanted in terms of the cata-
logue there can be no necessity for the detailed drawings Mr. Wakefield appears to make so much of. The lots are made from stock patterns supplied at quoted rates, and Messrs. Macfarlane and Company should have been called upon to execute the indent at their published rates.
4. This simple procedure does not, however, appear to have been followed by the Crown Agents. Messrs. Macfarlane and Company were invited to tender for supply of ironwork, notwithstanding the fact that the prices were all quoted in a priced catalogue published by that firm.
5. The result is that this Colony is saddled with such unnecessary additional charges as:---
Pattern expenses
Extra mouldings and extra metal
Fitters' time and material
Smiths' time and material
Do. time and material
£31 0 0
23 18 6
36 5 0
12 2 6
1 14 3
6. Ironwork has, on former occasions, been obtained from Messrs. Macfarlane and Company through the Crown Agents on the published catalogue rates, and it is by no means intelligible why such heavy special charges should now be made.
7. The wrought iron articles supplied are charged at £16 11s. These could have been supplied locally for 802.
8. The only special castings indented for for the verandah corners could have
F
57
been also supplied locally at half the cost, although it is well known that all local work turned out by private firms is a great deal costlier than it should be.
June 1, 1898.
Enclosure 2 in No. 26.
THE COLONIAL TREASURER to the COLONIAL SECRETARY, (No. 386/01.)
A. M.
SIR,
The Treasury, Singapore, July 26, 1901. WITH reference to your circular of the 5th instant, I have the honour to state that as regards requisitions I can only speak of those which affect my Department, and they relate almost exclusively to stamps and currency notes. I have no complaint to make of the manner in which requisitions have been carried out. Delay there has been with regard to the supply of currency notes, but for this the Crown Agents are not responsible.
2. The only case of inexactness within my personal knowledge occurred last month, when five sheets of 8 cent, stamps were found short in one of the sealed and certified packets, the missing sheets having been put in another packet.
3.
As regards the Crown Agents' accounts they are well and promptly rendered. Mistakes, of course, there have been, and perhaps less seldom of late. I enclose a list of some of recent occurrence. They are mostly very trivial, the only important one being the first on the list, i.e., the omission to pay the contribution to the South African War Fund till reminded.
4. The only way in which I can suggest that the Crown Agents could serve us better would be in taking the initiative in securing the most economical expenditure on supplies, where such action is possible. I would instance such articles as postage stamps, where the great improvement in modern machinery and methods might secure lower rates than have hitherto been paid. There was a case in point last year, where, on the initiative taken in the Colony, a greatly reduced price was obtained for currency
I'have, &c.,
notes.
FRED. G. PENNEY,
Treasurer,
Straits Settlements.
MEMORANDUM.
I. Treasury, 1406/1901, points out that $50,000, voted by Legislative Council and sent to the Crown Agents by Telegraphic Transfer (£4,895 16s. 8d.) on 21st December, 1899, for the South African War Relief Fund was not paid. It was after- wards paid by the Crown Agents on March 8th, 1901, per voucher 56, after a reminder
was sent.
II. Vide Treasury, 3641/1901, January, 1901, account points out that per voucher 8, dated 1st January,
Sir Hugh Low's pension for the last quarter of 1900, £2 was debited to the
Colony instead of to Perak.
Paragraph 2. Further, in the account for October, 1900, per voucher 49, dated 3rd, Major Tranchell's £47 12s. for the third quarter of 1900 was debited in the same manner.
Paragraph 3. Points out that in January account dated third, the year for the rent of Christmas Island was wrongly stated 1900 instead of 1901. III. Treasury, 4632/1901, February account points out that Mr. Hoyle's instal ments towards his debt to Government are not regularly credited in the accounts.
IV. Treasury, 4395/1901, February account, voucher 121, dated 26th, the amount £1 11s. paid to Emma Needham for expenses to ship was debited to Straits Settlements. It should have been Perak.
V. Treasury, 4569/01. March account points out that per voucher 90, dated 15th, 16s. 11d. is debited in the account for freight on one case pump work belonging to Trinidad.
}
9922
H
58