PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
'T :། ། ། །
C.O. 885
8
'
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
412
articles under a fixed tariff. We are satisfied that Messrs Freeland fully earn the amounts paid to them, and it is obvious that, if shipping agents are not employed by us, to make arrangements in respect of f.o.b. contracts, it would be necessary to require suppliers to make c.i.f. contracts; in other words, to arrange for delivery in the Colony in question; for this additional work the suppliers would make a charge; at the same time is not their proper business, and is much better done by agents who make it their business. In enclosure 5 Sir A. Hemming makes comparison between our freight and other charges and those of the local firms, Messrs. Mildred Goyeneche and Co., and as such a comparison promised to be of value we have examined the figures. We must admit, however, that we have not succeeded in under- standing how they are made out. In most cases the goods referred to as supplied by us were ordered and supplied with other goods, and inclusive charges for freight, &c., were made for the whole shipment; and we are unable to follow the exact process by which the charges given are made out for individual articles. We give, as an instance, the case of the "disinfectant." Here our charges (taking the proper propor- tions) were as follows:-
Freight 18 feet 8 inches at 25s. Primage, five cent....
per
Customs entry and B/L pro rata Dock dues
Agency 16 drums at 2d. Insurance
Commission, one per cent.
11
s. d.
8721∞KO
2 8
4 0
20 7
But the Colonial statement puts our charges at £4 6s. 3d. On the other hand it appears to us that the rate in the £ on Messrs. Mildred's figures is more than once understated. Thus under "hand-brushes," their charges are put at 3s., which is reckoned on £3 2s, as 103d. in the £; but it is 114d. In the last case but one (bar iron) the freight and charges of the firm work out to 11s. per ton; we are assured by the brokers of the Jamaica line that no goods were taken at the time at anything like this figure. Our charges usually include the cost of inspection, but we should doubt whether Messrs. Mildred had any inspection. In short, this table seems to us to be another instance of the uselessness of collecting together a number of cases without supplying the particulars necessary to make them intelligible.
85. A further despatch from Sir A. Hemming calls attention to the case of a request for documents relating to the assessment and collection of income tax and of local rates. We were to blame in this matter. We immediately applied to the Inland Revenue Department for advice, and on their reply sent off certain papers mentioned by that Department: unfortunately by the mistake of a clerk they were addressed to another Colony. Also we did not in the first instance apply to the Local Government Board as well as to the Inland Revenue Department. We have apologised for these mistakes, forwarded all the papers required, and have received the thanks of the Colonial Government for them. We do not think Sir A. Hemming would have addressed the Secretary of State about such a matter except, as he states, to confirm his view that books and publications should be ordered direct from book- sellers or publishers. This order, however, did not specify the books wanted but left it to us to find out what would be suitable, and we hardly think it bears on that point.
86. The Governor of the Gold Coast states that an examination has shown that there have been very few real causes for complaint in that Colony, but that in a few cases there appear to have been delays in the supply of stores which it should Enclosure have been possible to avoid. The cases are mentioned and we annex particulars of
them. The first is one of a special kind of galvanised sheeting, and hardly of “
very ordinary materials.". As to the second, there would seem to be some misconception; the delay does not rest with us, as we reported on the matter in March, 1901.
87. The Governor of the Straits Settlements expresses himself well satisfied with the way in which we have done our work, but specifies three cases as subjects for complaint.
88. The first of these was the time taken in supplying the steam dredger for
Badlosure Singapore River. We annex particulars of the case.
N.
93
89. While we regret the delays which took place in this case, and the incon- venience caused, we would point out that no time was wasted at any stage in the matter in this office. The long time occupied was due to the reference to Consulting Engineers, the invitation of tenders and the failure of the contractor to complete according to contract. We submit that in all such cases a clear distinction should be drawn between our own delays and those which rest with other quarters.
90. Sir F. Swettenham refers to a similar dredger afterwards ordered by the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company on the 25th October, 1900, and delivered in the Colony on 3rd May, 1901. Had we been asked to obtain a second similar dredger we could have placed the order with great rapidity, the design and specification being already settled; and by going to the same builder, who would have had all the drawings and patterns, we could probably have secured early execution of the contract. The com- parison, therefore, is scarcely a fair one.
K
53
91. The second case referred to by Sir F. A. Swettenham is one to which we have already referred, in which he states we departed from instructions and thereby caused inconvenience and expense, viz., the case of certain iron girders ordered for the extension of the Master Attendant's Office at Singapore. The Governor stateş that this gave rise to a long correspondence with the Crown Agents, a copy of which is enclosed." We notice with surprise that this copy of the correspondence does not include a letter from us of the 23rd of November, 1898, which replied at length to the complaints made. We enclose a copy, and request that it may be read Enclosure in continuation of the papers forwarded to the Secretary of State. We also enclose 0. a copy of a short reply which we received. We need only add here that it was a question of the construction of the requisition, and whether we were right or wrong in our views it does not seem to us that the case can properly be instanced as one in which we departed from instructions. This requisition, we may also observe, does not come within the period of three years named by the Secretary of State; it was sent to us on 21st July, 1897.
92. The third case is stated to be “an example, of the neglect of the Crown Agents as Agents of the Colony to take the initiative in securing economical expen- diture on supplies ordered." This is the case of Messrs. De La Rue and Co.'s charge for printing currency notes dealt with in your letter, 10444/1900, of the 9th of April, 1900, and in our reply of the 5th of the following May The Colonial Government drew attention to the high rate charged by Messrs. De La Rue and Co. as compared with the cost of the notes used by the local banks and of the currency notes of the Ceylon Government.
93. It is quite true that this rate was high as compared with that in the cases cited, but Sir F. A. Swettenham does not seen to take into account that price is a question of quality. In the very instance of local bank notes which Sir F. A. Swet- tenham cites as one of cheaper production, it was reported to the Colonial Office in 1898 from the Straits Settlements that forgery had been committed (see Gov. 15416/ 987); and it will be seen from the following report on the subject, which was obtained at the time from Messrs. De La Rue that the cheap and simple character of the note readily lent itself to forgery.
We thank you for letting us see the six-specimen forged Hong Kong and Shanghai bank notes, which we herewith return. We also send you a genuine $10 note, which we purchased in order to compare it with the forgery, and we shall feel obliged if you will return it to us when you have finished with it. The intrinsic weakness of the Hong Kong note is in the design, which is not nearly complicated enough, and we can only express our surprise that such a design should have been adopted by the bank. It lends itself to the most dangerous form of forgery, viz., reproduction by drawing by hand, and then transferring to lithographic stone, the course which has been adopted in the present instance. The design is of such a nature as to make this comparatively easy. If you look at the red machine back- ground. you will see that the forger has signally failed to reproduce the pattern, whereas the border of the note and other parts, which are all much too simple in character. offer no difficulty worth speaking of. It is curious, however, that he should have found so much difficulty in copying the somewhat simple machine work.
"With regard to the Straits Settlements notes which we have in hand for you, you can rest assured that they are protected against this class of forgery, for we have introduced some of the most elaborate and intricate work, not only in the ordinary
• Not printed.
ay
2