(For Official reference only.)
C O. 11748
344
RECO
leaving.
arrangements before
I have the homout to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's Most Oberent,
Stumble Servant,
J. Murch
Administrator.
SECURITIES BY GOVERMENT OFFICERS/
REG 3 JUL 92.
(Enclosure No. 1 in Major-General Whitfield's Despatch No. 76 of 5th June, 1871.)
(C.S.O. No. 1613 of 1871,)
AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 2nd June, 1871.
Neither the records of this or the Colonial Secretary's department show what amount of security was given by Mr. FORTH as Treasurer of Hongkong, no explanation having been afforded in such respect by the Secretary of State's despatch of the 19th of March 1857, No. 33.
I have no precedent therefore to guide me in calling upon Mr. SMITH for security, unless as derived from the case of Mr. MERCER which was so dissimilar in all respects to the present, that no comparison can well be drawn.
For instance in 1847, the Revenue was £31,078, the Expenditure £50,000, the Treasurer's salary £900, and the security given by him £3,000; whilst in 1871, the Revenue may be estimated at £190,000, the Expenditure at £180,000, and the salary is but £200.
True that under recent arrangements one third of the Revenue is now paid into the Oriental Bank by the departments, whilst the public moneys are lodged in the same establishment in lieu of the Treasury vault, but this still leaves a very large sum (say about £127,000), under direct annual collection at the Treasury, whilst all payments are as heretofore made therefrom; granted that this is now done by cheques signed as well by the Colonial Secretary as the Treasurer instead of cash, but the effect of this has been only to simplify and lighten business arrangements, and thereby render practicable a diminution of the office staff, not to increase security, as a dishonest employé might more readily earry out mal-practices by easily convertible choques, than by the old system of drawing the funds from the vault under special warrants of the Governor and by the joint instrumentality of the Colonial Secretary, the Treasurer, and the Surveyor General, and of paying them out across the counter in hard
cash.
Nothing therefore has been attained in respect to security, although the business arrangements have been greatly improved, and therefore I don't well see on what grounds the Treasurer should now give less security than in the time of Mr. FORTH.
At the same time, however, Mr. SMITH receives but £200 for his salary, whilst Mr. FORTH had £1,000, and is it fair under such circumstances to make the security the same? Mr. Surrи may also with some show of reason object to being held responsible for the receipts and payments made previous and subsequent to the necessarily short visits paid daily by him to the office.
That the visits of Mr. FourH were equally short at one time, I believe, but he gave full security for the intromissions of the office and could not have been excused had irregularities occurred when he was absent, whilst in the case of Mr. SMITH we know well that he is at the head of one of the most important departments of the Government, that every minute taken therefrom is a public loss, and that The could not be held legally or morally responsible if his clerks erred whilst he was engaged in official
duties as Registrar General.
Such being the case, I do not well see how he can be called upon for any security. Perhaps the wisest course to adopt under the circumstances will be to apply to the Secretary of State for specific instructions.
J. GARDINER AUSTIN, Auditor General.
MAJOR-GENERAL AND LIEUTenant-GovernOR H. W. WHITFIELD TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY.
Confidential.
GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONGKONG, 8th June, 1871.
MY LORD, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's confidential despatch of the 3rd of March, directing me to report confidentially on the Officers of the Surveyor General's department, and to explain what are the duties discharged by the various employés and clerks therein.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.