M Herbert
This mode of submitting Supplementary Expenditure for
sanction—i.e. the mere transmission of a Supplementary
Appropriation Ordinance without a particle
of information as to the total to which the Expenditure has been
brought for the year—& total amount of Revenue to meet such
expenditure—is obviously altogether defective.
Very detailed directions were given as to the statements which
sh accompany Supplementary Appropriation Ordinances—in the
D.
of Buckingham's printed
desp to the Straits N 243
Nov 27/68
(annexed for reference), which was sent out to
B. Columbia
for the late Governor's guidance some time since (see
D. of
Buck to
Gov N 105
Dec 7/68 dft in 12,125/Treasury/68).
I should think it
w be advisable to draw the Governor's
attention to that despatch, & instruct him to supply the
information prescribed in it, to accompany Supplementary
Appropriation Ordinances, on future occasions. On the present
occasion, it seems hardly worth while to raise any question as to
the Supplementary Expend provided for
1868 &
1869.
I presume it may [be] sanctioned, & the Ordinance (N 2 of
1870) confirmed.
The Governor raises a question as to the proper interpretation
of
the Treasury instructions, as to Supplementary Estimates, by
which his
Gov has been hitherto
guided. His views do not seem to be very clear, &
I think it
w be of service to him to send him a copy of the Straits
Auditor General's report of
Oct 13/69 (being in print, we have
no doubt a spare copy of it) annexed to 248/14,155/69 Straits
Settl, circulated with a dft herewith. This Report gives what
I believe is a current explanation of the standing Treasury
Instructions, referred to, on Supplementary Estimates, & will
probably solve
Governor Musgraves doubts.