120
With reference to the
question whether Imperial
or Colonial
"Funds should pay the Falkland Islands pension, I would point
out that in the letter to the Treasury Aft with
it was
taken
as
M 9452 H Kong 187:
of 14 Sept. 1870, it a matter of course that the Salary had been paid from Imperial Fundo and that Imperial funds should pay the pension; and the Treasury to have adopted appears in its
reply this view without demur. It seems
Du
28 Sep 1870 1051788.10
herewith
singular theat in a letter from the Freasy 10516/10 hab of the same date, (on the case of Freacher of Labuan) that Dept. gave
a decision, which, through
to me
to be right,
it
appears seems to conflict with that given in Mr. Rennie's
case.
case of
I would also advent to the
Mr. Andrews (See Treasy. letter
1460 Maurition (71) in which the Treasy
an a Gold Coast case
has given
a
decision of
the same.
character
hereu
character as in Dr Teacher's case.
I do not think theat Parliament voted specific Salaries for the Falkland Selands, but that its grants, although
ed bo
they formed
so large
a
proportion of
were
the Revenue of the Colony,
simply
beauts in Cromal leveyed on this view
Grants did
A
that the Inland Revence Board has
It is
lately consented to
refund
1
Income
ax, which had been levied on the
"Falkland Islands Officers.
Saliries of
The tax had been levied
or
the
assumption that the Lalaries were dron from Imperial Funds, but
the Board has which was
7. Rogers
agreed
in the view
strongly taken by Sir
two or
thue
years ago
that through Parliament
dums in aid
may
of the Revenue
must Colonial
grout of a Colony, the Colonial Offices be deemed to be paid from Junds. This view which confessedly
was
new at that time, led
to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.