M Elliot
It has been usual and apparently sufficient in order
to enable
Cox & Co to draw the salary of the Governor of
Bermuda to furnish them upon their application for presentation
to the Paymaster General with a certificate of the form in
use at this office.
The Paymaster General appears now to require independently
of this certificate an additional authority from
the Treasury which I
suppose would only issue on the receipt of a letter from this office.
I suppose
the Treasury should be asked, though it would
be for the first time, to issue the authority required by
the Paymaster General.
A precisely inverted course was recently observed with
respect to the salary of
Colonel Moody of
British Columbia.
It was usual in this case upon the receipt of a letter from
Cox & Co to
request
the Treasury to authorize the issue of
Colonel Moody's salary and, on hearing this had been done, to
inform
Cox & Co but without sending them a certificate of the
kind abovementioned.
On the application of Messrs
Cox for
Colonel Moodys
salary for
the last December quarter the same course was by
inadvertence followed as has been usual in the case of the
Governor of Bermuda—i.e. they were simply furnished with a
certificate—this proved insufficient and the inadvertence
had to be rectified by following the usual course in the case
of
Colonel Moody—viz of simply writing to
the Treasury.
But when on the application of Messrs
Cox for the issue
of
Colonel Moody's [pay] for the
last March quarter, the usual
course was followed (viz of writing to
the Treasury) the
Paymaster for the first time refused to issue the Salary without
the production of a certificate of the abovenamed kind.
I suppose in future the course will be to write to the
Treasury and, on receiving an answer, to inform Messrs
Cox also sending them a certificate.
But I have gone into the case in case you should think it
worth while to ask
the Treasury to explain the departure from
the usual practice in
Colonel Ord's case as well as in
Colonel Moodys.