CO129-370 - Governor Sir Lugard & Public Offices - 1910 [12] — Page 160

.II

OPT.

.01 vara

1.

To accompany II.)

156

(805TTO #1atetoe? fainafe)

„ore! ¿Todavok .##0 2013nol

adrakor toy met Skmunand of butoonth as I

เ

all yd #načont „dzē oft botah atunža a to vygoo bouoiono srit

of beanorħba ato.tol à dilw rostomat tortovo“ are yous([hoxt

„Šromtraqob won at sirolo mista

(039 mm I

{.ba)

* C132 01903 £stzofoU

.Totast vitodral off

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

In this case I am of opinion that the loss occurred owing to irregular procedure in the Harbour Office. For this irregularity there is the less excuse because a search light had quite recently been directed on to the methods of accounting etc., by the case of Mr. Botelho, with consew -quential instructions issued both by the Treasurer and by your- -gelf. In addition to this very recent case (November 1909)

there was still more recent cause for the Harbour Master to have taken particular personal care to investigate the handling of money in his Department for the report of ur. Percebois followed by the Committee of investigation by Messrs. Osborne and Messer had within the last few days called his attention to it, and expressed the view that the Harbour Master did not adequately supervise the methods of collection of Revenue &c., as he says himself the Harbour Office is one of the largest revenue-earning departments and the Head of the Department can- -not therefore be considered an efficient officer unless he has

a thorough and personal control over this branch.

His reply is that he issued the orders

necessary on receipt of the Treasury and C.S.0. Circulars, end that he cannot be held responsible that they were not carried put. I do not consider this a satisfactory reply, and I cannot

I regret to say conscientiously accept it as exonerating Captain Taylor. After two warnings he had received he should have been in close personal touch with the accounting and have seen that his orders of a last November were being carried out. He does not appear to have made any personal enquiries, or taken any steps to ascertain whether the recent charges by Hr. Percebola and Messrs. Osborne and Messer had any foundation in fact. He continued to issue prohibited forms on his own responsibility his shroff it appears retained public moneys for several days together whereas he should have carried out Financial Instruct-

-ions 265, 327 and 328. The shroff apparently kept private.

ats