CO129-447 - Governor Sir May - 1918 [1-3] — Page 443

تسم

them ove

(Li the Shroff!),

told that ther

LASTA

subsequently shortage, and event

back to the life and took out Frome more —

"Probably fire."

sheck's

n

the had not comental Off and there is nothing

to show when on how the mistake of there

+

the streaki

fre

a

discovered

wa mt

ค

A

amy Im. Thapan's hand

time before the shutange

and it i

was refat

alvino Joseilility at "

might have her furloined at that stinge

Survy howen take no wh

-The Govern

The Board of Surry

A there incumstances

པ ;་ཐཁའམི་འག

Post givea

You

in Im. Thoman's!

my. Than

This further minute of 14 Febr. Post sub

that

unless y

ད་དེ་།། ་

VACUL

تا

of stamps an

are of no wholianke

smofnary in th Umfaturatily stamps

and

articles of value, easily & abstracted withot

constmary".

Mr. Stephens on

for shuti

ངམ་ལས

-

wom

17.5

May we have your advice please as to

our reply to the:Gov. Case (1) seems quite clear.

23.5.18

i

I would reply that it appears to be quite currect that the shorture of stams here reported should be considered in connection with the circumstances which, Mattended the differences which were up to exist in

436

1904 and 1915. In the former case it is clear that the aparent deficiency of 50 sheets of 4 cent stam a did not actually exist, the mistake having obviously arisen from the fact that, through a clerical error in the Crown Agents' invoice dated the 8th July, 1:0, it was made to appear that 5055 sheets of 4 cent

stam s had been received in the Colony, whereas, as shown by the amount charged in the invoice and also by the packing certificate, 2005 sheets only were actually supplied; while, in the latter case, it appears to be possible that the assumed surplus w due to a somewhat similar cause. It is unfortunate that, before the conclusions which were arrived at locally in connection with the last-mentioned case were finally adopted, the circumstances were not re- ferred to the Crown Agentswho, in reply to enquiries on the subject, assert that it is not possible for an excess number of sheets of stamps to be despatched by them and suggest that this particular discrepancy was possibly due to the confusing of the stam, s of different valuer,

As matters stand it cannot be held to be definitely. clear that the alleged surplus of 10 sheets of 60 81 stamps and 5 she ts of 60 $1.50 stamps did in fact exist at the end of 1915, and, having regard to the doubt on this point, there appears to be some justification for the Treasurer's sugestion, in his minute dated the 14th February, that there is a probe bility that the 5 sheets of $1 stamps stated to be deficient in 1917 never actually existed.

In these