_Der Philatelist_ chronicles, on the faith of a correspondent, Herr Von Jerzabek, of Temesvar, a set of the adhesives with Queen's head ..., two envelopes, and the 1 cent post card, all surcharged in black, with the word OFFICIAL. It is alleged that they were prepared and issued in 1877, but after a short time were called in again. The surcharges are in some cases oblique, and in others perpendicular. It is at least strange that, considering our intercourse with Canada, our first knowledge of the issue of official stamps so far back as 1877 should reach us from Temesvar, wherever that may be. [241] =Philatelic Record=, VI: 210. The Secretary of the Philatelic Society, London, whose official journal the _Philatelic Record_ then was, wrote direct to the Canadian Government to inquire into the authenticity of these so-called official issues, and received the following reply:[242]-- POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, CANADA. OTTAWA, _18th May_, 1885. SIR:--I am directed by the Postmaster-General to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 29th ult., inquiring whether postage stamps bearing the word "_Official_" on their face are in circulation in the Dominion of Canada, and beg, in reply, to say that no such stamp, card, newspaper wrapper, or envelope has _ever_ been issued by this department. I am, sir, your obedient servant, (_Signed_) Wm. White, _Secretary_. [242] =Ibid.=, VII: 84. This would ordinarily seem to have been enough of a disclaimer, but like Banquo's ghost the official stationery would not down, though the stamps seem to have been lost sight of. Not only were the envelopes of 1 cent and 3 cents of the 1877 issue, but the newspaper wrappers of 1875 and 1882, and the post card of 1882, surcharged across the stamp with the word "OFFICIAL" or "Service" in black, blue or red ink, but sometimes the arms of Great Britain were added at the left of the stamp, and also, in the lower left corner, the words "63RD. RIFLES" or HEADQUARTERS, } 63RD. RIFLES. } The lack of uniformity, or rather attempt at variety, was enough in itself to condemn the articles. Yet in the _American Philatelist_ for June, 1888, we find an attempted defence of them. We quote:[243]--