Sessional_Paper_1893 — Page 534

530

relieved him till January 18th, 1890, Mr. LISTER resumed duties from that date until the 21st June of the same year when Mr. WODEHOUSE again acted until the end of the year. Mr. MITCHELL-INNES was appointed Treasurer and assumed duties on January 1st, 1891, and he has been in charge of the Treasury since then up to date with the exception of six months' absence on leave in 1892, during which Mr. MAY acted for him drawing no salary for the first four months and half salary for the remainder of the period.

5. Prima facie Mr. LISTER'S estate and his sureties, to the extent of the bond of $10,000 given for the faithful discharge of his duties, are liable for the amounts misappropriated during the portions of 1888 and 1890 for which he was in charge of the Treasury. He left, I understand, no estate; but I am advised that his bond is still valid and that his sureties are good for $10,000. There are, however, two considerations which, in my opinion, preclude the possibility of recovering at law from the sureties on the bond. The first is that although the total of the amount misappropriated during 1888 and 1889 has been ascertained, it is impossible to state the amount misappropriated during any given portion of that period in consequence of the absence of certain Books which ALVES has made away with. The second consideration is that it would not be practicable after so long an interval, and with Mr. LISTER no longer here to speak for himself, to establish such negligence on his part as would induce a Court of law to give judgment on his bond. It is important in this connection to remember that Mr. LISTER held the office of Treasurer as an adjunct appointment only, and with an almost nominal salary, in conjunction with his substantive appointment of Postmaster General.

6. The same considerations for the most part apply in the case of Mr. Wode- HOUSE. I am unable, however, to accept either the conclusiveness or the relevancy of some of the arguments which he advances in his letter of the 20th instant. With reference to his letter of 24th instant I must observe that when Government moneys have been stolen in a Government Office it devolves on the officer in charge to discover and report how the theft was committed; but I am of opinion that, apart from the present impossibility of stating what portion of the total amount misappropriated between the beginning of 1888 and the end of 1889 was misappro- priated during the time for which in those years he acted as Treasurer, the fact of his not only having inherited a loose system of accounting in the Treasury, but of his having also held the acting office on an almost nominal salary in conjunction with his substantive appointment, the duties of which may be supposed to have occupied nearly the whole of his time, may properly be considered as a sufficient reason for absolving him from pecuniary responsibility for those misappropriations and also for those which occurred during his tenure of office in 1890. For these reasons I have the honour to recommend that the amount of the defalcations up to the end of 1890 be written off.

7. The defalcations which have been committed since the beginning of 1891 stand in a different category. On the 1st of January, 1891, the appointment of Treasurer was established as a separate and substantive post, and since then the Treasury has always been in charge of an officer whose whole time has been avail- able for the duties of the office, and the Treasury Staff has been strengthened by the addition of one clerk at the beginning of 1891 and of a second subsequently. Further, I am informed that from the books which exist the exact amounts misap. propriated during the tenure of each of the two officers, Mr. MITCHELL-INNES and Mr. MAY, who have been in charge since the commencement of 1891 can readily be ascertained. It is also on record that the Local Auditor urged on both these officers the necessity of balancing certain books, and that if his suggestions had been complied with ALVES' previous defalcations would at once have been discovered and his subsequent misappropriations prevented. There are therefore reasons, which do not obtain in the cases of Mr. LISTER and Mr. WODEHOUSE, for enforcing the pecuniary responsibility of Mr. MITCHELL-INNES and Mr. MAY for the misap- propriations which have occurred during their respective tenures of office as Treasurer and Acting Treasurer.

8. There are, however, several considerations which make strongly in Mr. MAY's favour, and which I feel it to be my duty to state, though for reasons which I need not specify he has not seen proper to advance them himself on his own account. I cannot, indeed, accept his statement, though I have no doubt that it is honestly made, that it was the Rent Roll for 1891, and not that for 1890, that the Local Auditor desired him to have balanced. The Commission are of opinion that on this point Mr. NICOLLE'S statement is correct, and Mr. MAY's recollection at fault; and, indeel, the circumstances forbid any other conclusion. Nor can I admit