Sessional_Paper_1893 — Page 541

537

In your letter under acknowledgment you state as your opinion that it was my primary duty as Treasurer "to see that Government moneys which reached the Treasury were all duly credited to Government and not stolen in my Office," and you request me to explain why I failed in this duty and what steps I took with a view to discharging it.

In reply I beg to state that I did fulfil my duty as Treasurer in seeing that the amounts which reached the Treasury were credited to Government, and in support of my statement I beg to remind you that the payments on behalf of Crown rent which reached the Cashier were correctly entered in the collection books of both ALVES and the responsible shroff and were duly paid into the Bank, a fact of which I satisfied myself by comparing the monthly collectors account with the Bank receipts.

It is true that a comparison of each counterfoil receipt made by ALVES with the Rent Roll would have shewn discrepancies; but I did not, when at the Treasury, and do not now consider that in view of the Treasurer's letter of 22nd March, 1892, such detailed comparison could fairly be considered as part of my duties.

The sums stolen by ALVES never reached the Treasury. They were impro- perly paid by the Public to him personally in his private room without my know- ledge, and I fail to see how they can be said to have reached the Treasury or how I can be held responsible for them any more than if they had been paid to ALVES at his private residence.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

The Honourable G. T. M. O'BRIEN, C.M.G.,

&C.

Colonial Secretary, &C.,

&c.

(Mr. H. E. Wodehouse to Colonial Secretary.)

F. H. MAY.

HONGKONG, 20th April, 1893.

SIR,

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your confidential letter of the 11th instant, and to make the following observations on the report of the Commission appointed to enquire into various matters connected with the defalca- tions by ALVES.

2. I desire to respectfully submit that the observations of the Commission, so far as they relate to me, are not fair, and that they are not supported by the evidence.

3. In the first place, I am extremely doubtful whether in my time it was the duty of the Treasury to balance the Rent Roll other than by adding it up and totalling it, and my strong recollection is that this duty devolved upon the Audit Office and not upon the Treasury.

4. I took over the Treasury as an acting appointment from Mr. LISTER who for many years had held the permanent post, and who was a businesslike and a painstaking officer and thoroughly acquainted with the duties of the office. In explaining the duties to me he never once mentioned the matter of balancing the books as a part of those duties. Mr. CARVALHO, the permanent chief subordinate officer of the department, who gave me every assistance in mastering the details of the Office never alluded to this duty. He says himself, in his evidence, that it was the duty of the Auditor to balance the Rent Roll, and my recollection of what went on in my time is entirely confirmatory of this statement.

5. Moreover, had it been the Treasurer's duty to carry out this work, Mr. LISTER on his return would have seen that it had not been done and would have rectified the omission, and when I again resumed the office six months later would have drawn my attention to the matter.