19720/10
had no means of knowing by whom the money was paid, much less where it was collected. (I am here referring to cash or bank notes.
236
Cheques or Compradore Orders could, of course, be traced to their signatories, but the question of whether they were handed to the shroff, sent to the Harbour Office by another hand, or by post, could not be answered by either of them without reference to my office. Besides, the shroff could not negotiate either cheques or Compradore orders.
5.
Charge (b)
When I told Messrs Messer and Osborne that the scheme was working smoothly and well, because I was able subsequently to discover that the shroff had in isolated cases collected money in defiance of my orders.
That I was guilty of falsehood
The circumstances related in the last paragraph justified my belief in the truth of the statement referred to. That events subsequently proved it to be but a half truth does not convict me of falsehood. I honestly believed that it was true in every respect, and I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the assurances I had received. As I have already said, (paragraph 4 of my letter of 11 November 1910), the statement that it was not in operation at all", is a mistake.
6.
Charge (c) That I considered it advisable to use up the old stock of forms from motives of economy.
These forms had been, as I have already indicated, in use for many years with official knowledge and sanction, and without previous consequent defalcation, so far as I am aware. As soon as the Acting Treasurer took exception to their use, I took steps to render them innocuous, but continued their use, as altered, until new forms could be obtained. These new forms, which were simply separate receipt forms, could not be supplied by the Government printers until about a week after the evasion of
19720/10
had no means of knowing by whom the money was paid, much lese where it was collected. (I am here referring to cash or bank
notes.
236
Cheques or Compradore Orders could, of course be traced to their signatories, but the question of whether they were han- -ded to the shroff, sent to the Harbour Office by another hand, or by post, could not be answered by either of them without reference to my office. Besides, the shroff could not negociate either cheques or Compradore orders.
5.
Charge (b)
when I told Messrs Messer and Osborne that
the scheme was working smoothly and well,
because I was able subsequently to discover
that the shroff had in isolated cases collec-
-ted money in defiance of my orders.
That I was guilty of falsehood
The circumstances related in the last paragraph jus- -tified my belief in the truth of the statement referred to. That events subsequently proved it to be but a half truth does not convict me of falsehood. I honestly believed that it was true in every respect, and I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the assurances I had received. As I have already said, (para- -graph 4 of my letter of 11 November 1910), the statement that it was not in operation at all ", is a mistake.
6.
Charge (c) That I considered it advisable to
use up the old stock of forms from motives of
of economy.
These forms had been, as I have already indicated,
in use for many years with official knowledge and sanction, and without previous consequent defalcation, so far as I am aware. As soon as the Acting Treasurer took exception to their use, I took steps to render them inocuous, but continued their use, as
altered, until new forms could be obtained. These new forms,
which were simply separate receipt forms, could not be supplied
by the Government printers until about a week after the evasion
of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.