The_Open_Door_deel1

-186-
million), water system ($ 0.8 million), schools ($ 0.1 million),
among other assets (86).
The list of disputed issues is far from exhausted by the above
treatment of the major ones. E.g. the accounting procedure of
stripping, dredging and exploration costs with respect to the
Bea Mountains, the creation of general reserves and the handling
of a reserve for belt replacement, the reporting system in
respect of income from N.I.O.C, the contract with the Loffa
Construction Company, to mention a few, have for practical
purposes not been dealt with. Though the questioning of their
appropriateness does have a significance within the total
framework of the development of the relations between the
Government and the concessionaire their minor financial importance
does not make a detailed discussion imperative, the less so as the
general trend of events will have become clear from the above
issues extensively dealt with.
A closing remark will have to be made about a question which will
undoubtedly have arisen during the discussion of the above
aspects of L.M.C.'s performance in Liberia, How could certain of
L.M.C.'s operations take place? As early as 1964 the report of
Whinney, Murray & Company had disclosed details of a number of
dubious arrangements and practices which in that year had already
been found prejudicial to the interests of Liberia. The report
had been presented to the Secretary of the Treasury in May 1964.
The Liberian Government, however, had never reacted to it by
taking any action against L.M.C. It is true that the 1965
Amendatory and Tax Agreement had five years earlier than had been
stipulated by the Collateral Agreement raised the company's income
tax liability to a level of 50? of the company's profits but, on
the other hand, the agreement had explicitly confirmed the
provisions of the Collateral Agreement in respect of the
computation of "net profits" whilst at the same time waiving the
right to any other payment including royalties which had averaged
nearly $ 150,000.00 per year in the preceeding ten years (87).
Consequently, Main Lafrentz & Co. in their report of 1970 could
do nothing but confirm and repeat the main conclusions of their
British colleagues with respect to L.M.C.'s activities.
The fundamental question here is whether the postponement of
actions against L.M.C.'s accounting practices and financial
manipulations had been deliberate. Or to phrase it in a different
way, whether administrative reasons, i.e. the underdevelopment of
institutions in Liberia, or political motivations, e.g. abuse of
power and or corruption, were responsible for the continued lack
of any actions of the Government against L.M.C.
The administrative machinery of Liberia will no doubt have left
much to be desired in those days - and this still holds for the
present - in the absence of a well-trained staff of disciplined