trusted subordinates well those
3. He relied on the Auditor to check his receipts.
He ought not to have done so in the face of despatch of 17270. 90. But here his nowad
the
I ventured again! WARAN fault is my
and in a sense the outcome of
He felt he was looked after by the job?
there had been no auditor "hiked up iù
say, intelligible
the new System
• by an expert.
If he
vay well to say greater that this ought not simply
human nature would probably have taken
It is all to be the case, but it is
and some allowance must be made on call.
that ground.
however Whatever may be said in extenuation
M. Mitchell Innes negligence, he neglected his duty.
The question then is how he should be punished.
I hope it will not be contemplated such severe measure as to suspension or dismissal. He is an active and capable young officer who has made a slip but who has plenty of good service in him, and such a step would be out of all proportion to the offence.
He was not the only one to blame, and ultimately
he was clearly at fault in this instance.
To transfer him, except to a capacity much inferior, would be a reward not a punishment. To degrade him or to fine him like the amount lost in Hong Kong would cripple his usefulness to the community.
I think he should be severely reprimanded and made to pay $1000 (less than £200) to be paid in convenient instalments. It would be enough for him to feel but not enough, I hope, to impoverish him, and it could be inflicted without implying that a high officer shown to be at fault must by way of example as a subordinate officer be held responsive for such losses as occurred.
There are three more general points in this case which it may be well to notice.
1. It is not for me to criticise the new System, but it is right to point out that the result of a separate Treasurer
trusted subordinates well those
3. He ulied on the Auditor to check his Zec.
receipts
He ought not to have done so i'm the face of despatch of 17270. 9o. But here
his nowad
the
I ventus
again! WARAN fault is my
and in a souse the outcome of
He felt he was looked
he was looked after your the jou?
there had been no auditor "hiked up iù
say, intelligible
the new
Systern
•
by an expert.
If
he
vay
well to
say
greater that this ought not
simply
hurnau natunz
would probably have taken
It is all
to be the case, but it is
and some allowance must be made on
call.
that
ground.
however
Whatever
may
be said
in extenuation
x
8
1
M. Mitchell Innes negligence, lo reglected
his duty duty
arises
I hope
to the
any
bey and doubt. The question then
how he should be iunished.
it will not be
contemplated
Such severe measure as
to
suspension
willing
{
o dismissal. He is an active wi
capable young officer who has made a clip but who has plenty of good service in him,
and Such a
especially
be out
as
stef
would it
seem!
it of all proportion to the offence
he was not the
only
one to blame.
and ultimating
醇
pound not. "Buh he was deary horned in thi
this in lims hit
Wegend Hi
Audit
도
A
To transfer him, except &
in
A
626
Capacity much inferion Air
a much
to anotic colony, would be a reward not a peenishment. To degrad
to anything
would be
him or
or
to fine him
like the amount los: in Hougtong
to
crifple
for the future,
the community.
his usefulness, to sombein
a lower him in the
eyer of
efined 10
severely reprim...
I think he should be
1000 $ (less than £20m)
ded a
be eagle to be paid in convenient instalments.
It would be
enough for
him to feel but not
enough, I hoje, is impoverish him, & it could be inflicted
intern. which would
imply
that ar
a
hald serfumsitle
igh officer
shown to
he must by way of example as a subordinad fficer Bright fld be hatik be held responsive for such losses as
occurred.
There are three more general points this case which it may
.1.
It is not for
System
have
well to notice.
me to criticise the new
but it is right to point out that w the result of a separate
Treasurer
T
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.