“If low income is a justification for the commission of crime, many of the offences affecting property would have to be treated in a different way from that which is in vogue. If Percy Ross, whose salary was Rs. 535 and odd, could embezzle Government money and receive the sympathy of the Englishman, we do not see why the man in need who robs his neighbours should not have the same measure of indulgence and the same measure of sympathy extended to him”.
JANUARY 20, 1902
A martyr to low salary.
BEFORE THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, LAST WEEK, MR. PERCY Ross, the Commissioner of the Sunderbands, in Lower Bengal, was charged with the embezzlement of Government money to the extent of very nearly half a lakh of rupees and with falsifying records in that connection. Before the trial commenced the accused, through his counsel pleaded guilty and threw himself on the mercy of the Court. Mr. Justice Stevens, in consideration of the appeal for mercy made on behalf of the accused, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, Counsel urged with great earnestness and feeling that the accused was a victim of circumstances, that he owed his difficulties to the comparatively low salary that he was paid. His salary and boat allowance combined amounted only to the sum of Rs. 535-10-10 monthly, with Rs. 3 a day travelling allowance while on tour. This was Ross’s sole means of support of his family which consisted of a wife and eight children, and was absolutely insufficient to maintain his position in the office he held under the Government. It was incredible, he said, as a matter of commonsense and prudent administration that such a poor salary should have been allotted to an officer in his position. Large sums of money had to pass through his hands. In these circumstances, counsel seemed to argue, it was cruel on the part of the Government to have expected the accused to be honest and to have prosecuted him for not being so. Besides, Ross had by his exertions added to the income of the State by about a lakh and a quarter, and he misappropriated only a portion of this sum. Nor had the Government exercised any control over him during a number of years. The accounts had never been audited, the treasury had never been examined for more than nine years. All these circumstances showed that the accused had been placed amidst temptations and being a man with a large family and weak health he easily succumbed to them. The presiding Judge was deeply impressed with this plea, but he had to take into consideration that the defalcations had been going on uninterruptedly for a period of seven years, and that the sum embezzled which represented an average of over Rs. 7,000 a year, was much more than should have been necessary for the support of his family, and His Lordship accordingly awarded the punishment of 18 months’ imprisonment which we have mentioned. We cannot find fault with the counsel for the accused for pleading in the way he did, for throwing the blame for the defalcations mainly on the Government; and we believe that the learned Judge only tempered justice with mercy in awarding the punishment. But there are other aspects of the case which make it necessary for us to add a word of comment. It is in the first place incredible that the Government and all the higher authorities should have for nine and half years left the now fallen Commissioner of the Sunderbands in absolute possession of large sums of money without any check or control. We cannot imagine a grosser instance of persistent negligence than is disclosed by this case. The officer or officers who are responsible for this negligence deserve, in our opinion, immediate dismissal from the service. We cannot conceive any valid reason whereby this gross neglect can be justified or extenuated, a neglect which has caused to the public exchequer a clear loss of nearly half a lakh of rupees besides the heavy expenses incidental to the prosecution of the accused. A public enquiry is absolutely necessary into the circumstances in which the Commissioner happened to be left to himself with all the Government money in his possesion so as to enable him to pose before the public as a victim of Government’s laxity and negligence, and his advocates in the Press to put him forth as a martyr to low pay and allowance. The Englishman of Calcutta devotes a long leading article to showing that “Mr. Ross has been the victim of a false and pernicious system which has followed a cheese-paring economy utterly careless as to the results” and winds up with the observation that he will not have suffered in vain if his case results in the removal of the crying scandal that has been brought to light regarding the office and pay of the Commissioner in the Sunderbands.” In the opinion of this journal it is neither the act of embezzlement on the part of the accused nor the continued negligence on the part of the higher authorities for a period of nine years that constitute the scandal; on the contrary it is the salary of five hundred and odd paid to Ross as Commissioner that is emphatically described as “the crying scandal”. Percy Ross is hereafter to be regarded not as the person who abused his official responsibility by embezzling public money but as the hero who, even like Jesus Christ, suffered for the sins of others, the greatest sinner in this case being the Government itself! The moral standard by which the Englishman judges the conduct of the accused, if adopted generally, will supply justification for a good many other offences committed by a far different class of people. If low income is a justification for the commission of crime, many of the offences affecting property would have to be treated in a different way from that which is in vogue. If Percy Ross, whose salary was Rs. 535 and odd, could embezzle Government money and receive the sympathy of the Englishman, we do not see why the man in need who robs his neighbours should not have the same measure of indulgence and the same measure of sympathy extended to him. “It is impossible to picture the spectacle of this man so grossly underpaid, so heavily overworked without a feeling of sympathy”. So writes our contemporary. We should, indeed, be sorry to see the moral sensibility of people so blunted as to make it impossible for them to denounce the conduct of a man who carried on a long course of embezzlement and brought disgrace on the service to which he belonged. It is quite possible, as we have said, to extend some measure of mercy to a man in the position of Percy Ross, if not for himself, at least for the condition of his wife and children, and we think Mr. Justice Stevens showed the greatest possible mercy by limiting his sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment. Against this few reasonable men are likely to complain. But to elevate the condemned man to the height of a hero and martyr is to distinctly lower the standard of public and official morality; and this is unfortunately what the Englishman has chosen to do.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I