CO129-346 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [1-3] — Page 136

nom enkbooong grit to real are hop dénom *

OVANOVA" At an ponstreinos "0" etdit od haber yet?soror Deda

*o* "bob^ed 5* *s*6" aufa makub -\a hofer Ifs" očet Bit:,"bofreq

.danom dn0837q ent

nolce-ebbutton Prox set sa olit nevis natwell

ader wie fobriu ni yaw reqona 9** *** nota::Isros eilt of smA" I

aysh to redrum vid elet of now benina-oons ed birrovie forom néd

-\$ ze -\S ovos, neu Bish suit meriw "hathing onetove" edd nabuch

wound medum farton en te rebalemen oft bre Ada bebroute ont

male of hormarono to bært vele ndria dulo 61dtanog et antimiXT ..\S

tosidia de o nhachi edrying

train art,eiqooq

I **OTW I terueset? (trolo

?

1901 on bagun" Se molcaoup but ac sade malvelled

n to have shit on shari ert srobed notežus ebindue ne to bar ed

heIddinge land & berkopen I nofesorn #no!****h teveron

MONT

YURSANT AT

7061, sedemo9C.Ada! (annoxonol

r

‚ainnam

İn

grit no mon di bw nanna donn60 I witon MA

food staving se dive 867900 to binge at

ar mobdenite ennuiloxe

.og ob p

di es moldesur U meley mens Jon Shoo I

offt nd bariduna sabed at +Luest víno solzigo y mi binow

."moamore

D•བ)m༼9°#c

not anonsen vi ofteful duo mal:des ,bailogs evad I sist of ed 11 darle nulzade brun (bandoriko emaid I noluiqo eft gribiod

Tot #2 #indua viheddvobru hluoda I,nolideang

male. Yon th

on bertan91 STBE T able of .xoltevebianos almoneffenxit "u"

Meer ove no al now no of emo atvorioveg ord as how our G

05 ob 1

hefferre 9

the interests of all whom the question affects.

4.

133

Putting on one side the discourtesy of the form which the Colonial Treasurer adopted for his reply, I take exception to the reason given for his disagreement with me. I cannot understand how a Public Officer can deliberately express a hostile opinion on a question which affects a large number of civil servants because it would benefit himself as well as them. It may be of course that 'as' should read 'although'; and I have suggested this as his possible meaning to the Treasurer, but, as I have said, he has not favoured me with a reply.

5.

I now venture to lay before Your Excellency very briefly my views on the subject. Looking at the question broadly it seems to me impossible to include rates in the average period which are over 2/-, because civil servants are not affected by rates above 2/-; and to incorporate such rates in the average computation would be to affect civil servants by them indirectly. I think the soundness of this view becomes

more apparent if the question is looked at from the point of view of a rising instead of a falling market: if for example during the first 20 days of the "average period" the rate had been under 2/- and above it for the last 10 days.

But the argument can be put into a less general form. There is an obvious, as I venture to suggest, connexion between the idea of taking the average daily rates for any given period for estimating the rate of salary of every month, and the fact that salary accrues day by day. When therefore the daily rates are taken for the purpose of arriving

at the average only such rates can be taken as the civil

servant is actually liable to be paid at. In the present

instance, I submit, with respect, that the daily rates above 2/- which prevailed between the 15th. November and 6th. December

cannot be brought into the average computation, because on the

days on which those rates prevailed the rate at which salaries

were