CO129-280 - Public Offices & Others - 1897 — Page 180

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Auditor-General's Report

may remark

Export at that by my Despatch

It last

no 214 of the 12th August in

which I sanctioned the supplementary

Appropriation Ordinance for 1895;

by implication I gave sufficient authority for

meeting excesses under

certain Sub-heads out of savings

under other Sub-heads of

the

same vote, as set out in the

Supplementary

Estimates for 1895,

which were sent home with the above

5. I request

that

you will inform

me why the expenditure of $900

on Salisbury Road, Kowloon, was

not included in that Appropriation

mentioned Bill

& Ordinance; if

this

expenditure has not been otherwise

legalised

a further Ordinance

should be introduced to cover

it.

{

6. With regard to paragraph 5+

the Report I notice that the item

for the Queen's Statue appears to

have been transferred and directed

in my Despatch No 115 of the 26th

May last from

'Public Works

to Loan' on the figured

page 8 of the Supplementary

Estimates for 1895, as the amount

charged to Loan is given at $183,186.27, instead of

previously $186,970.87 as given in

the Financial returns for by

you in your Despatch No 92

the 14th April last

}

Page 180

Page 181

Edit History

2026-05-30 11:06:22 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Auditor-General's Report may remark Export at that by my Despatch It last no 214 of the 12th August in which I sanctioned the supplementary Appropriation Ordinance for 1895; by implication I gave sufficient authority for meeting excesses under certain Sub-heads out of savings under other Sub-heads of the same vote, as set out in the Supplementary Estimates for 1895, which were sent home with the above 5. I request that you will inform me why the expenditure of $900 on Salisbury Road, Kowloon, was not included in that Appropriation mentioned Bill & Ordinance; if this expenditure has not been otherwise legalised a further Ordinance should be introduced to cover it. { 6. With regard to paragraph 5+ the Report I notice that the item for the Queen's Statue appears to have been transferred and directed in my Despatch No 115 of the 26th May last from 'Public Works to Loan' on the figured page 8 of the Supplementary Estimates for 1895, as the amount charged to Loan is given at $183,186.27, instead of previously $186,970.87 as given in the Financial returns for by you in your Despatch No 92 the 14th April last } Page 180 Page 181
Baseline (Original)
Auditor-General's Report may remark Export at that by my Despatch It last no 214 of the 12th Augreat in which I sanctioned the supplementary Appropriation Ordinance for 1995; by implication I gave sufficient authority for harting meeting excesses under certain Sub-heads out of savings under other Subhea's of the same vote, as set out in the Supplementary Estimates for 9,5, which were sent home with the hoofof above 5. I request that you will inform me why the expenditure of $900 on Salisbury Road, Kowloon, was not included in that ropofchementing mentioned Bi profoto & Ordinance: if this expenditure has not been otherwise legalised not a further Ordinance should be introduced to cover 176 it. { 6. With regard to paragraphe 5+ the Report I notice that the item for the Quran's Statere appears to ulliuratel have been transferred for directed in my Despatch No 115 of the 26th) may last from charged 'Public Works to Love" on the figured page 8 of the Sufflement zy Estimates for 1895, as the amount the charged to Louw is givu) at $183, 186.27, instead of * preiimisly $186,970.. 87 as given in the Financial returns forrons ad by you in your Despatch ho 92 the 14th April last } of Page 180Page 181
2026-05-30 11:06:22 · Baseline
View content

Auditor-General's Report

may remark

Export at that by my Despatch

It last

no 214 of the 12th Augreat in

which I sanctioned the supplementary

Appropriation Ordinance for 1995;

by implication I gave sufficient authority for

harting meeting excesses under

certain Sub-heads out of savings

under other Subhea's of

the

same vote, as set out in the

Supplementary

Estimates for 9,5,

which were sent home with the hoofof above

5. I request

that

you will inform

me why the expenditure of $900

on Salisbury Road, Kowloon, was

not included in that ropofchementing

mentioned Bi

profoto

& Ordinance: if

this

expenditure has not been otherwise

legalised

not a further Ordinance

should be introduced to cover

176

it.

{

6. With regard to paragraphe 5+

the Report I notice that the item

for the Quran's Statere appears to

ulliuratel

have been transferred for directed

in my Despatch No 115 of the 26th)

may last from

charged

'Public Works

to Love" on the figured

page 8 of the Sufflement zy

Estimates for 1895, as the amount

the charged to Louw is givu) at $183, 186.27, instead of

*

preiimisly $186,970.. 87 as given in

the Financial returns forrons ad by

you in your Despatch ho 92

the 14th April last

}

of

Page 180Page 181

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.