THE RETIREMENT OF MR. HEYES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9250, 29 June 1910, Page 2

THE RETIREMENT OF MR. HEYES.

ALLEGATIONS REPLIED TO.

The Dunedin Star in a recent issue has the following paragraph: — No one acquainted with the facts unr derlying the charges preferred against Mr Peter Heyes, head of the Taxation and Valuation Departments, will be tho least surprised to find that the Departmental inquiry into hi 6 conduct has resulted in the indictment being sustained, and that in consequence the Government have cashiered those responsible for what was confessedly a most improper proceeding, if not a positive scandal. That a high officer of State should have submitted his own property for mortgage purposes to the very Department controlled by himself was a decidedly censurable act; but that, being dissatisfied with the valuation put on that property by the responsible official of the. Department, h© should have imported into • the transaction another of nis own officers, who was not generally on to perform such a service, was a piece of supreme folly, which, when it came to be known, could only/involve its perpetrator in condign punishment. That an officer of Mr Heyes's experience and talents—for unquestionably in his own line he >vas a man of considerable ability—should have been guilty, of such a suicidal course surpasses one's understanding. His downfall will, be generally regretted, because no one likes to read of" misfortune oyerI taking anyone who, by_ his capacity and industry, has worked his way up from a subsidiary to an honourable position m the service of his country. But when such serious laches are sheeted home, as they have been in this case, it is right and proper —"pour encourager les autres. —that an example should be made of-the offenders, irrespective of their past records. The action of the Government is exemplary, but not a whit too severe under the circumstances.

STATEMENT BY MR. HEYES. Apropos of the above statement Mr Heves, in conversation with a representative of the N.Z. Times, said its main allegations were quite erroneous. "The first," he said, "is that Mr Heyes submitted his property to the Advances Department for the purpose of obtaining a loan," and that this was censurable. The first part of this statement is admittedly • true. • But if 6uch a course was clearly wrong, and so- improper that it justifies dismissal, the question arises why did the persons through whose hands it had to go not recognise the impropriety and prevent it from going on? The loan hao to be approved by the Board, consisting of the Minister, ] the Public Trustee, a non-official member, Mr Kember, besides myself. That the loan was in contemplation and had been effected was known to tho Valuer-General and his chief clerk, who gave directions as to the valuation. The valuer of the property was not in my Department. The Deputy-Superintondent of Advances to. Settlers, , the Audit Inspector who had to pass the payment, and the .-Controller and Auditor-General; who had to sign the cheque would all. see that a, loan wasi being granted, to "Mr Peter. -Heyes." Then, again, if the transaction, was oa the face of it so improper, why have a commission to inquire into it? The act was admitted. . Though it may on close consideration be considered inexpedient and to be avoided as leading to possible wrong, there was no wrong in the transaction itself. The Department was full of money at the time. I could have got more money on the property from an outside lender. I gave my security as others did, and got the money at the same rate. It was admitted at the enquiry that there was ample security, and security to the extent of justifying the loan. The valuation, upon which the mortgage was fixed was shown by comparison with valuations of land adjoining to have been moderate. I and all the others connected with the matter may have been wrong in not objecting to the loan on the ground that I was the chief officer (except the Minister) of I the Department, but this point did not occur to them. -

The second statement in the extract is the more serious one, namely: _ "That, being dissatisfied with the valuation put on tne property by the responsible official of the Department he should have imported into the transaction another of his own officers." This statement is untrue in every respect. There is no evidence that anything of the kind was done. The valuation was made by an officer not in my Department, but in that of the Valuer-General. I have been denied a copy of the minutes and report of the commission, so that I am placed at a great disadvantage. At the present time I am not going to say anything of the corn mission nor of the treatment meted out to me. I do say," however, that it has not been, and cannot be, shown that the public suffered by my administration. During the long term of my service I have devoted myself to the public service, and honestly endeavoured to faithfully discharge my duties. If I was wrong in asking for a loan at usual rates on security amply sufficient, it was an error of judgment for which I have suffered sufficiently without having exaggerated and incorrect statements made to the detriment of my character.