Sessional_Paper_1893 — Page 601

( 37 )

Q.-So the ledger account might have been added up every time?

A.-This book (indicating) which is called a Treasury cash book is not really a cash book. We should call it a day book because from this book they journalise entries.

Mr. Thurburn. I notice you have no account for each day. You simply bring down the totals.

A.-No, I had a separate book which I call a "telling cash book." This book was abolished by Mr. Nicolle and Mr. Mitchell-Innes from the 1st of January. It was a book that was found so useful that Sir Cecil Smith wrote from Singapore for a copy, and they followed it there. They tried to abolish it before, but I said that I wanted to keep it.

Q-How do they check it now then?

A.-I don't know what system they are working now. I had this particular book

with the Bank.

Mr. Bird. And you could tell the balance every day?

A.-At any moment.

Mr. Thurburn. You checked that with the pass book?

A. Every week: And the Bank often made the mistake of debiting the Govern- ment with a private cheque.

Q-Don't they keep such a book now?

A.-No. Mr. Nicolle said last year that he did not see the use of it. In that book I entered the number of the cheque and to whom it was payable. It was balanced every week with the Bank pass book.

Mr. Bird.--Your idea is that they have done away with that and have now got no detailed account with the Bank?

A.-Except the Bank book. Sir Cecil Smith admired my system so much that he sent for copies of the book. From that book I could tell at any moment what the position at the Bank was. From Sir James Russell's time to Mr. Lister's time I was the only officer to sign for the Treasury. Then they found that was too much for me to do and they introduced the system of every officer signing for his own particular work.

Q.-You did not point out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes who was new to the work that it was not a good system?

A.-No.

The Commission then adjourned until Friday, March 3rd, at 3 o'clock.