THE VOUCHER INCIDENT.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 60, 8 September 1905, Page 2

THE VOUCHER INCIDENT.

m DEBATE ON AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT. MOTION BY THE PREMIER. o THE NEW LIBERAL PARTY'S PROTEST. As reported in yesterday's Evening Post the report of the Auditor-General on the alleged improper payment to Captain Seddou, was discussed by the House. .The terms of the motion proposed by the Premier were as follow — "That the report of the Controller and Auditor-General be adopted. Also,— (1) That this House is satisfied that the charge against Captain Seddon of improperly receiving payment for reorganising defence stores, and against Messrs Collins, Grey, and M'Beth of giving untrue certificates relating thereto^ has been completely refuted, and should never have. been made. (2) That in the case of 'Captain Seddon this House regrets .that the Charge against him . should have been reiterated after it had been shown to be unfounded. (3) ihat .it, be an instruction to the Supervisor of Hansard and the Gov- . eminent Printer to dnsert\in the bound copies of Hansard, at tho end of the speech made by the Member for Wellington, Mr. F. M. B. Fisher, in which the charge was first made, and at the end of every debate wherever subsequent reference was made thereto in Hansard, a copy of th,e Controller and AuditorGeneral's report; and that attention be drawn. to the said report, and to this resolution, and intimation be given that the said charges have been investigated and refuted." The main points of tho Premier's speech were reported yesterday. In continuing his remarks upon the subject, he said Mr. 'Fisher had stated that if he failed in this respect he would go out of public life. That was a matter for Mr. Fisher to decide. Analysing the evidence, the Premier pointed out that there are -four records kept of every payment, and the entries would still exist even if the voucher was lost or destroyed. And yet Mr. Fisher, in his letter, suggested there might have been forgery, although tho evidence- even of some of Mr. Fisher's own witnesses was against any such possibility. He again complained of tho manner in which tho charges were made. They were made at a time when he could not refute them, and they got four or five days' start before he could deal with them. The Premier then laid on the table a communication from the Treasury Department stating that Captain Seddon always signs vouchers "R.J.," and not "R.J.S." Seddon. MR. FISHER'S ATTITUDE. Mr. Fisher said the Premier had refrained from referring to the letter he (Mr. Fisher) sent him a few days ago. His object in writing that letter was to removo -in impression that there was any personal feeling behind the matter. He still had, however, unbounded confidence in his witnesses, and the people of New Zealand would not be satisfied until there was a full public enquiry. The/ Premier could not break down his witnesses, bub he could smash the Premier's witnesses into ninepins. His witnesses had petitioned the House for a full enquiry; they had nothing to fear, and the Premier had not cast a shadow of doubt on their evidence. ] ' Mr, Larcombe was a man of twenty-two years' service, accustomed to J handling vouchers. He took this voucher to Willis, with whom he discussed it at length, and they also mentioned the matter to! West, who looked'at the. voucher and joined in the discussion. During the course -of the enquiry, twenty Sneddon vouchers came to light. The Sneddon voucher was white and the Seddon voucher was blue — all the witnesses swore to that, and the contents were so unlike that they could not possibly bo mistaken. He had .admitted, on the report of the AuditorGeneral, that Captain Seddon did not sign the voucher, bub What he wanted to know was, who did sign it? There was no suggestion thai) these men were suffering under a delusiou. There was no possibility of their having made a mistake. If the Premier had nothing to fear why did he object to the order of reference of the enquiry being made as wide as possible? When enquiry was first mentioned he had asked ' would tho enquiry be open, but he could get no answer. He wpuld be quite happy to go before any Judge and argue his case, and he would be confident of the result. Messrs. Larcombe, Willis, and West were men of unblemished character, and could it be suggested that they had signed false affidavits/ when they had nothing to gain and all to lose by so doing? Nobody in the colony would make that suggestion. Referring to the Premier's statement that Captain Seddon signed his name "R. J. Seddon" on vouchers, he pointed' out that in the documents connected with the case, in letters to Mr. Taylor, in his oVders to Lieut. Dillon on a certain occasion in South Africa, ho had always signed himself "R. J. S, Seddon." This was a singular circumstance. He then dealt with the evidence of Mr. M'Beth, the Christchurch Postmaster, who said in a telegram to tho Premier Ithat Captain Seddon had never been in his office, and who yet gave evidence at the enquiry that "ho did not know Captain Seddon, and would not know him if he, saw him." Uo quoted the statements to other witnesses to show the unreliability of Mr. M'Beth's memory. The evidence - also showed that the witnesses, Messrs Larcombe, Willis, and West, were of high character, and officers who occupied such a position as they did were not selected unless they were of tried ability. Theso men now asked for a pubic enquiry, and he urged that the Premier should assist 'them in finding out who signed tho voucher "R. J. S. Seddon," and where it went to. There were two. aides to this question, and he wanted tho people to understand that. He also emphasised tho fact that the statements made by his witnesses were absolutely specific, all of them asserting .that the voucher was in the name of R. J. S. Seddpn, and was for reoiganising defence stores at Wellington, and that at wasTpavable at Christchurch. That was the' fact that struck them as being peculiar. Another witness, Lundon, came forward Voluntarily, and said he also recollected seeing the signature of R. jf, S. Seddon to a voucher. These men hud, ns invited, come out into the open, and now those who invited them, to come into the open wanted to shdot them down. That was nob fair • fighting. This was a question of common justice, and lie asked members if they were prepared to deny these men a fair open enquiry? If the Premier had nothing to fear there was no reason why ho should nob grant it. On 'their behalf he challenged tho Premier to grant an enquiry. Let him prosecute them for perjury— anything to bring the matter into the light of day. Tie could nol tell the Premier how the information was fiist granted to him, . His recollection was that while- talking to Willis, ho (Mr. Fisher) u-iid he heard that Captain Seddon had received a payment to which he was not" entitled, and Mr. Willis said- "That's so." It was wrong to draw the inference that these men .were swaged by f his personal

influence. They would not send a man. to gaol for stealing a loaf of bread without giving him a public trial, and yet it was suggested that these men were to be punished for doing what the House had invited them to do. He was satisfied that if a public enquiry was granted there would be an exceedingly startling disclosure. A GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT. Mr. M'Nab urged that there was no Court, not oven a Bench of Judges, there was no tribunal which could find the truth better than the Auditor-General,, and his report was a. complete answer to the charge. He moved as an addition to, tho motion, > "That the House desires to place . on record an expression of its plea- • sure at the receipt of the report of the Auditor-iGeneral, and congratu- , lates the .Premier, as Minister of Defence, that the charge made, by Mr. Fisher has been proved to be unfounded in substance and in fact, and that it has been established that no payment as alleged was ever made. "That this House also recognises with extreme gratification that the certificates given by the Secretary to the Treasury, the Assistant-Secretary to the Tieasury, and the Under-Sec-retary for Defence relating to the alleged wrongful payment to Captain Seddon have been proved to be ab- , solutely correct, and tho House desires to comgratulate officers named, and also Captain Seddon, of the Defence Department, upon having successfully vindicated their reputations as officials and also the reputations of their respective Departments from the attack made upon them by Mr. Fisher. "That Mr. Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution and of the Auditor-General's report to the officials named." MR. TAYLOR IN REBUTTAL. Mr. Taylor said it would be obvious to members that Mr. M'Nab's amendment was moved t{> prevent tho House being asked to vote on the proposal to grant a full public enquiry into the matter. He (Mr. Taylor) had given notice of an amendment to that effect when the matter was last before tho House. Mr. Speaker said that Mr. Taylor's amendment could be moved after the amendment proposed by Mr. M'Nab had been disposed of. Mr. Taylor pointed out that lie would not have another opportunity of speakig. 'He knew nothing about this matter until Mr. Fisher, mentioned it in the House, nor did he know that he was going to mention it. The effort made by the Premier to show that Captain Seddon signed vouchers "R-, J. Seddon" and not "R. J. S. Seddou" was Temarkable. He (Mr. Taylor) had two signatures of Captain Seddon in his possession. One was signed "R. J. Seddon" and the other "R. J. S. Seddon." The enquiry held was secret so far as the\ press was concerned, and a public enquiry was refused by the House, and the House also refused to extend the order of reference so as to include all payments made to Captain Seddon during his period of employment in the Public Service. As to the Sneddon and Seddon voucher he claimed that there could be no possibility of confusion. Sneddon merely signed as authorised agent , for Anderson, Ltd, and the clerks in the office were thoroughly familiar with his signature. Four men of unimpeachable character and of long service, accus•tomed to handling vouchers, declared that they saw and handled and criticised a certain voucher that came under their notice in tho ordinary course of their , duties. One man discussed it with his wife. There never was a Snoddon voucher. It was made out for Anderson, Ltd., and there was a scoro of such discovered during tho enquiry. He was not prepared to say that he had every confidence in the Audit Department system of records, nor was the Premier prepaied to say that he had every confidence in the Department, for iiy 1900, speaking on the Public Reyenues Bill, ho said the Department was too pernicketty, that it had passed one amount of £20,000 improperly, ■and that it had failed to discover embezzlements in local fiodies' accounts. Mr. Willis, he added, was denied access to certain Treasury books, and he contended that he was baulked in his search by that refusal. Ho said deliberately that he had it on what he regarded as unimpeachable evidence that a certain official "in a public office in the Government Buildings, Wellington, during the past week, had declared that, despite the Auditor-Gene-ral's report, the Auditor-General had been misled, and a record of a payment of the natuie referred to was in the office a few weeks ago, and must have been destroyed by some method since Mr. Fisher first mentioned tho matter in the House. Thero was the challenge, and his witnesses declared that that was their belief. One of them had said so on oath. Nothing but a public enquiry could ascertain whether that was truo or not. Would the Premier, after such a challenge, declare that a private enquiry was sufficient ? A MINISTERIAL REPLY. The Colonial Secretary asked Mr. Taylor .this. It was in evidence' that payment was made by Treasury cheque. Did Mr. Taylor mean that the cheque had been destroyed? The>recoTd could not be destroyed-. Replying to- Mr. Fisher, { he pointed out that his remarks were inconsistent with the terms oT'tho letter he had written to the Premier, when hs Biiid 'he freely and frankly accepted tho decision of the Auditor-Gehsral so faT as a payment to Captain Seddon was concerned. Sir Joseph Ward went on to describe the system of records, to show that if ahy'6uch voucher aA alleged had ever* existed there must still bo some record of it, and went on to say that some; of tho officials at Christchurch had broton tho regulation^ by disclosing information Which they were bound to, keep secret. Tho information had been first given to Mr. Fisher before lie was a member of' tho House. If officials thought a criminal act was being committed they should havo reported it to their superior officer, by wliom it would havo been reported to the Minister. Their duty was clear, and 'they be*trayed .their trust, and yet, on the evidenco of such men, Mr. Fisher wanted Hie House to believe that iMesars. Heywood, Collins, and Grey had perjured themselves. Mr. Fisher : Nonsense. Sir Joseph WaTd declared that that was 'the inference to be drawn from Mr. Fisher's remarks. He went on to cantend that full opportunity had been given the Christchtrrch officers ito find the voucher, if it existed, and he contended that if the Auditor-General had any doubt on tho subject he would havo said 60. Ho helioved that Mr. Fisher was first misled by a Christchurch Post Office official, and that the samo official nrii>ted him about Iho alleged improper payment for a wreath. OTHER SPEECHES. Mr. Wilford said that Mr. M'Nab did not intend to prevent Mr. Taylor moving his amendment in favour of a full public enquiry. He was interrupted by the dinner adjournment. Full galleries were present -when Mr. Wilford resumed his speech at the ovening sitting. His chief .point was .that if the enquiry had been 'before a Court or other tribunal no further evidence could 'have been elicited, and no further evidence could bo given if another enquiry was grants He urged that tho man

who was reported to ihave declared that the voucher was destroyed ought to com© and disc-lose his identity, because until ho did so every membsr of that branch of tho Civil Service would be implicated. Mr. Fowlds was perfectly satisfied with the investigation made by the Au-ditor-General, whose capacity for making such an enquiry could not be.denied by any one. No benefit could be derived from submitting the matter to another tribunal. Mr. iMoes pointed out that the ~De-'' partment could use the resolution which 1 the House was asked to pass as a reason for dismissing i'he Christchurch officers. This matter was the effect of our system of secrecy, under -which the representatives of the people were not allowed to see a single voucher foT the expenditure of public money. The question still re--niained unanswered — what document did these officers see, who put it there, and what had become of it? Mr. Laurenson said that, having read tho evidence, he believed that not j, single penny had been paid to Captain Seddon for reorganising Defence stores. Thß evidence against 'the statement was practically overwhelming. He (Mr. Laurenson) suggested that the Premier, having got the verdict, and having conclusively proved .that there wa6 no such payment, could well afford to be generous. That being so, he would like to see the Premier strike out of 'His motion that portion which said "that this charge should never have been made." He .thought the membsr for Wellington, &b any one would see after reading the evidence, was justified in making the charge. "The play of the missing voucher is becoming monotonous," said Mr. Hogg, and he urged that the curtain should be rung down. He was satisfied almost from the first fthut tho voucher was a myth ; that it never had any existence ; and the Christchurch officials laboured under a hallucination. Even if a public enquiry was granted these people would not be satisfied. All they wanted was to carry the thing over the general election. Mf. Major expressed satisfaction with the report of the Auditor-General. .MR. FISHER AGAIN. , Mr. Fisher was the next speaker. He disclaimed all desire to introduce anything of a personal nature. He could not experience the satisfaction from this sort of a tribunal as from a tribunal open to tho press and public and cross-examina-tion. He would accept the verdict of a tribunal of this character. He pointed out that he had apologised to Captain Seddon publicly. Captain Seddon, the Premier had strid, never signed vouchers "R. J. 8. Seddon." Well, the voucher was signed R. J. S. Seddon. Who signed that voucher? That is what they wanted to know. In reply to Mr. Hogg's remarks about "hallucinations," Mr. Fisher quoted extensively from the evidence given by the Christchurch Post Office officials, and he urged that if any member had such information placed befoTe them they could not disregard it. These officials were ready if necessary to be proceeded against on any charge the Government might lay against them, and they were satisfied that they could prove the truth of their assertions. The Colonial Secretary said there were four records of each voucher, bub if that was so it was extraordinary that no such evidence was given before the enquiry, and Mr. Willis was refused tE» Treasury record corresponding with the voucher. Further, when the Treasury drew a cheque there was nothing to identify it with any individual who received it or the nature of tho payment. As far as he could gather the only place where there was any sucbj record was in the Treasury, and it ltad not been produced. They needed the power of unrestricted search. Nothing would convince him that these men were suffering from hallucination. They handled the document. The enquiry showed it was nob signed by Captain Seddon, 'and the question was, who did sign it "R. J. S. Seddon" and what had become of it? In conclusion, he denied that a chafge had been made against Messrs. Hey wood, Collins, and Grey of giving untrue- certificates, as was stated in the Premier's motion. Ho was prepared to accept their statement that they could nob find any record of such a payment, and ; the Premier should not ask the House to pass a resolution which contained statements contrary to fact. Ho had no objection to Mr. M'Nab's amendment, and felfe sure that every one Would be^pleased that the officials referred to therein had been exonerated. He felt no regret at having accepted in good faith the evidence of the Christchurch officials. They had come out into the open, they asked for a full public enquiry, and were prepared to pay the extreme penalty if it could be proved .that their evidence as not fouuded on fact. MORE OF THB PREMIER. , The Premier said he had listened with pain to Mr. Fisher's speech. He could not understand Mr. Fisher having so short a memory as to say that no reflec«un was cast upon Messrs. Heywood, Gollilis, and Grey. Mr. Fisher had distinctly cast a reflection upon them, and, in face of their certificates reiterated the chdrges he had made. Either Mr. Fisher should stand by his charges or witndraw, and make that reparation that he had promised. In all this controveisy the cheque had never been brought up at all. That cheque would have to be unt «signed by the Chief Postmaster, Mr. M Beth, and the cheque would have been in existence. Where was it? M i_ r " '£ vu ylor:y lor: It>3 drawn to a number. The Premier said that didn't matter. Ihe cheque would be there. Mr. Taylor: And it is there, I make no doubt. The Premier wenfon to deal with Captain's Seddon's signature— R. J, Seddon and not R. J. S.. Seddon— and declared that Mr. Taylor had been in communication with an officer of the Bank of New Zealand on the subject. "I know where you are, and what you have been doing," declared the Premier with some heat, looking across the Chamber at Mr. Taylor. Every voucher his son had given had been investigated by tho Auditor-General. There was no escape. The thing arose through a lnisconception. The resolutions before the House carried no .penalty and no punishment. If Mr. Fisher had done no more than mako a frank apology for his action, it would have been pleasing to' his 'constituents, but his speech that day showed Hint he was only going as far as he was forced. As to the Christohurch officials, there would be, under the regulations, a departmental enquiry; it would bo private or public as the Governor in Council determined. "The Government did not deny them their just rights. "Let there be an end of this wretched business," urged (he Premier in concluding his remarks. GENERAL COMMENT. Mr. Dutliic said he accepted without reservation the finding of the AudilorGeneial, in whom he had every- confidence. Be blamed the Premier, however, for having limited 'the scope of the enquiry, and for not having accepted the amendment proposed by Mr. Buchanan with the object of widening the order of reference. The Premier should have met the charges frankly and fully. Mr. R. M'Kenzie expressed the opinion that the report of the AuditorGeneral had satisfied every honest man and woman in the colony that the charge was groundless. The whole thing was manufactured and Well designed in order to announce tho birth of a new political

The Leader of the Oppasition said that hitherto he had refrained from taking an active part in this controversy, and he did not propose to take an active part now, as he recognised that it was a matter between the Premier and certain independent members of tho House and not between the Premier and the Opposition. He desired to say, however, that he looked upon the Audi-tor-General as one of the best officers in. the public service— an impartial, straightforward, and able man. He had made as exhaustive an enquiry as he was able to do under the restricted order of reference, and he was in "complete accord with the report he had presented, believing that it was in keeping with the evidence tendered. At the same time he felt that tho Premier should havo agreed to Mr. Buchanan's amendment extending the scope of the investigation. With regard to Mr. M'Nab's amendment, he considered it implied that at one stage of the proceedings there was a doubt as to whether, the Premier would be able to substantiate his case. Further, he did not think it was necessary to congratulate tho Premier upon his honesty or to congratulate tho officers of the Department upon their truthfulness any more than it should be necessary to congratulate the Speaker upon giving an impartial ruling, and he held that the Premier would be consulting his own dignity if he asked Mr. M'Nab to withdraw his amendment. The Premier, had stated that- the action of the foui^posjal officials would form the subject; of "a departmental enquiry, and he (Mr. Massey) expressed tho hope that the enquiry would be. open and exhaus- • tive. This was necessary in the interests of the men of the public service and of the colony. With regard to the Premier's motion, he objected to the proposal to interfere with Hansard. Hansard was supposed to be a record of the proceedings of the House, and he objected on principle to any additions being made to the publication. As a matter of fact there was no necessity for the proposed addition, as, the charges • had been met. In conclusion, he said he thought ' both the House and country were thoroughly tired of the voucher business. (Loud cries of- "Hear, hear" from all parts of tho House.) It had blocked legitimate business for some tjme, and he hoped they would hear very little more of it. Mr. Smith supported the Premier. Mr. Baumc said that the Leader of tho Opposition was- inconsistent in opposing the proposed insertion of insets in Hansard, as in 1898 he had voted for a similar proposal in connection with the Bun Tuck case. Mr. Tanner believed that the four postaj. officials saw all tthey swore they had seen, and the reasonable theory was that they had been the victims Of a hoax. Mr. Hawkins considered the charges wore absolutely unfounded so far as Captain Seddon was concerned. A mistake had been made somewhere, but in face of the evidence he thought a judicial enquiry should be set up to fathom the whole business. Mr. Ell unreservedly accepted the Audi-tor-General's report and deprecated the methods adopted by the New Liberal Party throughout the piece. After further discussion Mr. Massey again urged that in the first paragraph of the Premier's motion thero was the word "untrue." That word had been ruled to be unparliamentary, and he wanted to know whether it -could be included in a motion. The Speaker ruled that such a word wafe not out of place in a motion. At 0.50 a.m. Mr. M'Nab's amendment, which was proposed in addition to the. Premier's motion was carried, on a division called by Mr. Taylor, by 47 to 14. Those who voted against the amendment were — J. Allen, Bedford, Buchanan, Duthie, Fisher, Harding, Hawkins, Herdman, Mander, Maasey, Moss, Khodes, Tanner, and Taylor. A FURTHER AMENDMENT PROPOSED. • Speaking to the motion as amended Mr. Bedford moved an amendment affirming the necessity for a public enquiry into the matter of the voucher. / Mr. Davey and the Premier raised points of order against the amendment, but Mr. Speaker ruled in favour of Mr. Bedford's amendment, and Mr. Bedford proceeded with his "remarks, claiming a full public enquiry into the whole mattor. It was now after la.m., but there was still an interested crowd in the galleries, which had remained quite full until after midnight. Some ladies were gtill in the ladies' gallery. Mr. Bedford, in the course of his remarks, said that if the four Christchurch Post Office officials had done something rhey should not have done, they should bo punished, but it was not right to judge them Without full enquiry. THE END. - Mr. Taylor rose to speak and to second the amendment, but was ruled out of order by Mr, Speaker on the ground that he had already spoken. On Mr. Bedford's amendment the Minister for Public Works moved "the previous question" — "that the question be not now put,'" — which was agreed to on the voices. This practically applied the closure, and the Premier's motion, with tire addition moved by Mr. M'Nab, was at 1.50 a.ln. carried on division by 47 to 5, thoso voting against being — Taylor, Fisher, Laurenson, Moss, and Bedford. The proceedings finished just on 2 a.m., and the Houso at once rose.