FO371-27622 — Page 228

Page 228

Page 228

193

(Paras.12- 18 of

Report).

(Para.37)

(Paras.20-

28 and 38-39).

(Page 15 of evidence).

In this despatch I will deal first with the

conclusions of the Commissioners regarding Mr. Forrest's conduct; of his office and subsequently with timir

reflections upon the local administration.

Mr. Forrest was found by the Commission to have been at fault on two major matters, the first being that he knowingly and irresponsibly neglected the accounting sida

That conclusion is, I think, inevitable: of his department.

but the Commissioners then proceed to lay the real blame for this neglect on the shoulders of Government for having selected an unauitable officer as head of the new department. With this issue I deal below.

5.

The second count is that he deliberately disobeyed the ruling of the Governor-in-Council by giving to Mr. Kobza what amounted to a monopolistic agency;

that he took pains

and that when he thought

to congeal that he had done so¡ that his action was coming to light he tried to entrench Mr. Koba in his agency by converting an agreement which was subject to three months' notice to one good for five years.

The

Commissioners convict him of deliberate disobedience and calculated surreptitious defiance of Government's instructions and they recommend his removal from the service.

6.

Mr. Forrest contends that his agreement with

Mr. Kobza was not a monopoly, so that the charge of disobedience falls to the ground, and that he had no intention of concealing what he had done. The disingenuousness of this defence is obvious and in my view the verdict of the Commissioners is

indisputable.

At the same time I cannot avoid the impression that Mr. Forrest, overðriven as he was by circumstances, was so such blinded by his determination to defeat the pseudo-agents,

Page 228

Page 228

Page 228