CO882-(8-9) — Page 268

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

TTILLC.O. 882

سلئسلسلنسيا

46

the crops, 6. I have not attempted to analyse the direct effect of the storm upon for I am not as yet in a position to closely estimate the amount of damage done, but from such information as I have been able to obtain, I feel sure that it must be considerable, and, in spite of the succeeding favourable weather, there is as yet no evidence of any general recovery.

7. The prospect of a large crop and of an increased output led to the hope that confidence generally would be restored, and that, as a result, employment would be found for the people, and a sufficiency of revenue would be collected; that hope has, in my opinion, been minimised, if it has not disappeared, and I venture to think that the cause is in an occurrence beyond human control.

8. In anticipation of a more complete report on that occurrence and its effects, I beg to submit the above considerations by the present opportunity, the more especially as it will be my duty to transmit by telegram certain resolutions passed by the Chamber of Agriculture, and endorsed by the planting community, which I have already foreshadowed, and in which it is again urged that a loan to assist the sugar industry is of paramount necessity.

14343

No. 49.

I have, &c.,

CAVENDISH BOYLE.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 9.28 a.m., 24 April, 1908.)

(Paraphrase.)

TELEGRAM.

With reference to your telegram of the 15th of April,* by 23 votes to 3 the Council of Government passed resolution to the effect that the Council does not feel justified in inviting the appointment, of a Commission of Enquiry at the present

Despatcht follows.-BOYLE.

time.

14462

(No. 84.) MY LORD,

No. 50.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Received 25 April, 1908.)

[Answered by No. 53.]

Government House, Port Louis, 18 March, 1908. In your telegram of the 4th current the following questions were put to me: (1) how much of the overdraft on the general account of the Colonial Government (therein stated to be £84,000, of which £52,500 was on account of bills drawn on Bombay) is due to the advance to the Commercial Bank; and (2) what is the actual position of the Treasury.

2. On the 9th current§ I had the honour of addressing your Lordship by telegraph, and of stating, in reply to the first question, that the proportion of drafts on Bombay (including a bill for Rs. 300,000 drawn on that day) which is due to the advance to the Commercial Bank was £22,220. In amplification of this statement I would here mention that the amount of the bills drawn on Bombay was increased by the operation of the 9th current from £52,500 to £72,500, and that the amount of £22,220 represents Rs. 333,333, or the sum equivalent to one-third of the notes issued as an advance to the Commercial Bank, which sum the Currency Commissioners considered that they were required by the law to hold in silver against such issue. With reference to the transaction of the 9th, and to the pre- vious drawings of a similar nature, making the total of £72,500, a full explanation of the causes which rendered this course necessary will be found in my despatch, of even date,|| written in reply to your despatch, No. 26, of the 7th of February.1

8. In reply to the second question quoted above, I stated that the financial

47

officers estimated the amount of the overdraft on the ordinary account current with the Crown Agents (the underlining was not telegraphed) at about £18,700, that the Crown Agents had been authorised to draw on this Government for £10,000 (this they had not yet been able to effect), and that the cash in the Treasury was Rs. 500,000 available for current expenses. I added that the estimated deficit for the whole financial year, to the 30th of June, was Rs. 600,000, of which Rs. 400,000 was the shortage to the 29th of February.

4. In corroboration of the above figures and estimates I have the honour to transmit herewith copies of communications* which have passed between the Colonial Secretary, the financial officers and myself, together with a statement* of revenue and expenditure, partly estimated, for the current financial year; the Receiver- General's estimate of the position of the general account current with the Crown Agents on the 29th of February (this was accepted and endorsed verbally by the Auditor-General); a statement* of the amounts drawn on the Crown Agents (Bills on Bombay) against investments on account of the Commissioners of Currency; the Treasury Daily Balance Sheet for the 4-5th of March; and a statement giving the exact position of the Currency Commissioners' accounts to the end of February, and, save as to the bill for Rs. 300,000 drawn on the 9th, showing the position as on that day also.

5. On the 17th current I had the honour of receiving your telegram of the previous day, from which it would appear that my message of the 9th was not under- stood; and that, inclusive of the bill for Rs. 300,000 already mentioned, the total overdraft was £103,500, of which £72,500 is on account of bills drawn on Bombay. It was further stated that my message of the 9th implied that the total overdraft was £40,920, and I was asked to account for the difference of £62,580.

6. I have to-day addressed a telegramț replying at some length to the above question, and I would herein repeat that my message of the 9th appears to have been. mutilated in transmission; for certainly it was not intended to imply, nor, in my opinion did it imply, that the total overdraft was £40,920. The amount of the bills drawn on Bombay, £52,500+£20,000, or £72,500, was agreed to, and, on the state- ments and estimates furnished to me, I made the overdraft on ordinary account current £18,700 instead of £31,000, as indicated in your telegram of the 4th.§

7. Upon receipt of your message of the 18th, I proceeded to further investigate the question of this difference as to the ordinary account current, and I annex a copy of instructions* given to the Colonial Secretary, and a statement by the Auditor- General and Receiver-General showing their view of the position of the account to the 20th of February. From this it will appear that they estimate the overdraft or sum due to the Crown Agents at that date at £18,373. I realise, of course, that during the first days of the present month payments may have been made by the Crown Agents which may account for the difference of some £12,800, and doubtless I shall receive a reply to my request for further information on that point.

8. With regard to the distinction drawn between the amount due on account of bills on Bombay, and that due on the ordinary account current I would here mention that, although the former may appear in the books of the Crown Agents as an overdraft, the transactions connected therewith are entirely distinct from their ordinary disbursements and receipts on account of this Government, and that as soon as it may be found necessary or advisable the Crown Agents are fully empowered to realise the amount so drawn and due to them by sale of a portion of the securities which they hold on account of the Commissioners of Currency.

9. I am of opinion, therefore, that in estimating the true financial position as between the Colonial Government and the Crown Agents such an amount as that of £72,500 under consideration cannot be regarded as an actual overdraft, or as a sum due by the former to the latter, but rather as an advance made at the discre- tion of the Agents, and on securities held by them which can be realised at any

moment.

I have, &c.,

CAVENDISH BOYLE.

• No. 47.

f No. 34.

↑ No. 57.

14461 not printed.

↑ No. 30.

4068: not printed.

Not printed..

↑ No. 36.

1 No. 37.

f No. 80.

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO