CO129-590-11 Commission of Enquiry into irregularities in Immigration Departments 22-4-1941 - 19-12-1941 — Page 166

978

169

hairman:

e have been told there was no deponit ledger.

Mr. Taylor: There was not.

A.

The deposits were murported only by the c:unterfoils of receipts

given to the depositore? /nd possibly wo light add, by the lists

of depeitors and deponits which supported paying in voualeve,

those lista being taken from the axuateribils of the receipts.

At e cartain time the ahro Eupt a book of all the monies he

received and paid into the Trean sing,

Including deponite?

He had a record of many

I am speaking about deposite only.

he rocaived from the 5.1.0's and paid in, but retier this is a

full account i have not been able to ascertain,

That manifestly could be no more than a record of the amounts

which .1.0's say fit to pay to him.

Yes.

The subsidiary record of what ench 2.1.0. sutually received you

have not yại come smOBEŤ

lot in all

Another book was kept of money received by

an 1.0. I unferetend he did this, put down the first two

or three daya the mount and sgainst the mount the day, the

deposit receipt rambera; but £x in certain cases be only had the

A.I.0'a name with the amount of money. There the difficulty

comes in of milocating the amounts to the dierent deposit

receipta.

Gould it be fair to say the muault of your inquiries since 1st

February is that na proper or fall system of a counts had been

in foros ia lhe Department i

I would much rather any no perfect systre of accounts.

We will work backards. To what extent was it imperfect?

v hovu now a record book which shows the deposit number, tho

name of the person and the amount received, refursied to hima

or estreated; or perhaps I had better call it forfeited. There

was no book so chow that befor and we had to find out one or the

other by a process of elimination.

Would it be unfair to say that that is far from perfect?

It is far from perfect but under the condition: under which they