FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1905.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 36, 11 August 1905, Page 4

FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1905.

THE VOUCHER MYSTERY. — • On Wednesday last, after the close of the debate on Mr. Fisher's motidn that hia letter to the Speaker relating to the alleged Seddon voucher Bhould be laid on the table of tho House, the Premier wag allowed to deliver a special reply, by way of "Ministerial statement" or personal explanation, to tho suggestion that the official certificates produced were to be discounted as coming from men who were bound to support the Government. He declared that the Auditor-General and his Department were impugned by the insinuation, and that, "this being so, it would be for that officer to take a course which ho (the Premier) hoped would be taken, "and then we will see what will be tho position of these Civil Servants and those members." What happened yesterday makes it plain that at the time of ins using these words he had already contrived a 'way out 09, or round, the difficulty created by the renewal of Mr. Fisher's charge, fortified by the undisclosed affidavits and his colleagues' general corroborataon of their purport. It was tactically impossible to continue meeting tho demand for an enquiry with a direct negativo on tho ground that charges as specific as any that could be desired outaido of a, criminal court were not specific enough, or upon any other technical plea whatever. A better course would be to concede some sort of enquiry, though not necessarily the aort demanded by Mr. Fisher and his friends; and if a limited enquiry could be devised which would at tho same time precludo or seem to preclude the neceseity for a fuller one, that clearly would be the best course of all. This accordingly is the procedure upon which the House at the instance of the Premier has decided. A petition came before it yesterday from tho three officials who had certified to tho absence of any such voucher as that alleged by Mr. Fisher, and who "regarded as a grave reflection on their integrity the statement that they could not be expected to report adversely to the Government." It is natural that the Secretary and the Assistant-Secretary to the Treasury and the TJnder-Secrctary for Defence should feel aggrieved by what appears to them "a charge of deliberate dishonesty," but ib would be absurd to suppose that the coincidence between the course which the Premier on the previous afternoon hoped to see taken, and that for which they asked, was accidental. At any rate, the petition of these officers prayed "that the Aildrtbf-Geiii erol bo directed to enquire mi report

as to tho accuracy of their certificate," and th& Premier, whose hope to the same effect was already on record, moved accordingly in the House yesterday, "the investigation to cover the whole period of Captain Seddon's connection with the Defence Department." In speaking to the motion, the Premier said that "Captain Seddon would make a statement on oath that he never received such a payment. It was in his mind that there had been a serious mistake, and that someone had misled Mr. j Fisher. Everything pointed to the one mistake owing to some similarity in the names of the parties. 4 ' The country will receive -with satisfaction the announcement of the evidence to be given by Captain Seddon, and -will wonder more than ever as to what may be in that sealed envelope. Tho possibility of another mistake as to names seems out of the question, since, as Mr. Fisher pointed out, the affidavits were sworn after the Sneddon voucher had bean made public. The mystery will be solved when the Auditor-General has opened the affidavits and examined the deponents, and in the meantime it is gratifying to find^ that Mr. Fisher has disavowed any such imputation as certainly seemed to have been implied in the course of the previousdebate against the officers who have petitioned for enquiry. He said yesterday that "he did not cast any aspersion on the departmental heads, but .when the departmental heads denied that such a payment had been made,, and three Civil Servants swore by affidavit that it had been made, it showed that it might have been made without the knowledge of the heads of departments.' There would have been less bittei^ feeling aroused by the incident if nothing beyond this possibility had been suggested by the charge. As to the- high personal character and rigid independence of the officer who lias been asked to conduct the enquiry, nothing that was said by the Premier yesterday went beyond the mark. While the independence of one officer after another has been sapped -by the present regime in order that the will of a single man may havo absolute sway through ©very department and grade of the public service, tho Auditor-General, by virtue of the strength of his character and the independent 'tenure of his office, nas been a conspicuous exception to the general rule of bowing the knes to Baal. Tho Government has often chafed under tho fcarkfis exercise of his great powers, and such relief as it has secured has ■been by imposing statutory limitations upon his authority and not by compromise or favour. It lies, therefore, in nobody's mouth to say that in selecting the Auditor-General to conduct this enquiry Ministers have selected a judge •who is biassed in their favour or from whom on any ground -whatever they havo any reason to expect anything more than bare justice. His powers according to the section cited by the Premier are apparently ample, though ib would appear from a section which he did .not cite that not Parliament, but the Govejnor-in-Counoil, is the proper authority to set the enquiry on foot. The only question is whether enquiry by the Auditor-GeneTal will be the kind of enquiry which the gravity of the case demands. The whole matter of the charges Ls now public property, and has attained such a prominence in the public mind that it is 'highly desirable that the evidence by which they are to bo 6upported or rebutted, and the whole process by which it is to be checked and sifted, should be public property also. Moreover, Mr. Fisher himself being on trial in the .matter as much as any public official, it is also desirable that he should have the opportunity of watching ths proceedings and of being represented in them. Neither of these conditions will be fulfilled by the AuditorGeneral's investigation; it will be private, it can recognise no parties, it cannot tolerate the intervention of anybody but tho officials and witn-sses concerned and summoned. In these respects the proposed enquiry will be unsatisfactory, but it is possible 'that tho AuditorGeneral unay nevertheless get to the bottom of ' the whole business, and the public will have every confidence in the absolute impartiality of the tribunal. Should occasion require it, it will still 'be possible, as the PremieT eaid, to institute further enquiry, but we trust that tho Auditor-General's report may bo of a kind which all parties will be able to accept as conclusive.