CO129-577-4 Report to the Director of Colonial Audit- 1938 24-10-1939 - 7-3-1940 — Page 4

4

& you

conf. (2)

7.3.40

licks. (2)

of

corres. referred to in para. 14.1

of the report.

Have you any

desons?

шавреский

574/40.

(The files have been destranged wider stitute", which

is why

we cored nowhere the cares.).

Comme

76..

Orde 39/32 Imals

i uude

22/44

X

Y

Mr. Greenhill,

3460/1.

I have no information on the point mentioned in

para.141 of the Auditor's Annual Report for 1938

beyond what is contained in No.1 and 3 herein.

From the C.0. letter of the 31st of December, 1923,

to the Secretary of the B. A. T. Coy, a copy of which

is sent in No.3, it seems that two points were at that

time involved: -

(a) the differentiation in the annual fee for

Public and Private Companies; and

(b) the refund of the fee in cases of duplication.

(a) was presumably settled by Section 352(5) of

Ordinance No.39/1932, if not earlier, and (b)

apparently still holds good in spite of the concession

granted under (a). But the Governor in his despatch

at No.1 herein says that the matter has been carefully

investigated and that the grant of both reliefs to a

single company is not considered improper. Unless,

when Ordinance 39 of 1932 was passed, it was definitely

section intended to make 7.352(5) the limit in future of the

special treatment of Private China companies

this

-

the

I have no

papers about the Ordinance might show these,

reason to dissent from the Governor's view, and if you

concur in it I would let the Auditor know of the

decision.

19-4-40

A., Harding

Director of Colonial Audit.