large.
On the second point of difference between N. I and N. II, I would mention that it was the object of No. II. to bring down the balance to a reasonable amount. But after deduction under the head of surplus balance, it appeared likely that the accumulation of funds would be just as large and unnecessary on the 1st April 1899, as on the 1st April 1898.
The recent returns bear out this impression, and it is accordingly retained in the corrected Estimate now submitted.
29 April.
155
large.
On the second point of difference
between 1: I and N. II, Iwould
N:
mention that it was
of
b
a
aw
object
No. II. to bring down the balanens
for.
a
reasonable amount. But
deduction under the headi
of surplus balance, it appeared likely that the accumulation
of
funds would be just as large
and unnecessary. April 1849,
as
on
on
the pot of
the 1st April 1898.
The recent returns bear out this
impression, and it is accndingly.
retained in the corrected Estimate
now submitted.
29 April.
155
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.