MR. D. GOLDIE AND THE HARBOUR ROARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8608, 2 July 1891, Page 5

MR. D. GOLDIE AND THE HARBOUR ROARD.

CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT. THE CONTRACT QUESTION. [BY TELEGRAPH.—SPECIAL CGRKESPOKDENT.] Wellington, Wednesday. The return asked for by Mr. Shera, showing the remarks of the Audit Inspector, Mr. C. O'H. Smith, regarding the accounts of certain public bodies in Auckland, with other correspondence, was laid on the table of the House this afternoon. The correspondence opens with a letter addressed to Mr. J, E. Fitzgerald, Controller and Auditor-General, by Mr. Smith, as follows :—"I desire to bring under your notice some facts connected with the supply of timber to the Auckland Harbour Board, which have come under my notice when examining the accounts for 1891." | 1. Mr. David Goldie, a timber merchant, is a member of the Board. 2. Mr. R. A. Player is a contractor for the supply of timber. 3. Mr, James Goldie is a clerk in Mr. D. Goldie's employ. 4. Mr. R. A. Player is a clerk in Mr. David Goldie's employ, 5. During the year the following sums, have been paid for timber by the Board : — Jas. Goldie, £15 4s 8d; David Goldie, £14 lis 8d ; R. A. Player, £122 4s Sd : total, £152 Is. 6. Bill- heads attached to each voucher giving prices of measurements, etc., are printed David Goldie. _ - 7. The printed word " David " is scored out, and the name "James" inserted in ink when James Goldie is nominally the claimant. S. The printed words "David Goldie" are scored out, and "R. A. Player" insisrtcd in ink when R, A. Player is (nominally) claimant. 8. All the moneys are signed for by C. A. Gcldie, tho authorised agent apparently, of Mr. James Goldie, Mr. David (Joldie, and Mr. Player. 10. The accounts rendered by each of the abovenamed gentlemen are nearly all in the same handwriting. The secretary of the Board had an objection to allowing the vouchers leaving his office, and they are too voluminous to copy, but attached you will find a schedule giving' some further information in regard to each of them. There appears to be no doubt (and certainly there is none in my mind) but that the real contractor is Mr. David Goldie, the member of the Board, and that the namesjof James Goldie and R. A. Player are but a disguise to evade any penalties the law may provide in such cases. O'Haka Smith, Audit Inspector, Auckland, 23rd January, 1891." ' Then follows a schedule of payments made on account, of timber by tho Auckland Harbour Board during the year 1800. The total amount is £152 Is. The payments are made in favour mostly of R. A. Player and also in favour of David and James Goldie. There is then a letter from Messrs. Devore and Cooper, solicitors, for Mr. D. Goldie, explaining that whilst Mr. Goldie was absent in Wellington as a member of the House of Representative.!, Mr. Player, a clerk in his employ, tendered in his own name, and was successful in obtaining the contract with the Harbour Board for the supply of timber. When Mr. Goldie became aware that a contract had been entered into by Mr. Player during his absence, lie, while not knowing the full effect of the law, determined, as his term of office as a member of the Board would expire in a few weeks, to remain in office, but not to seek re election, and this decision he made known to some of the members of the Board. Next follows a letter from Mr. J. E. | Fitzgerald to Messrs. Devore and Cooper. He says:—"l hid' just written to the t chairman of the Board on the subject, but on the receipt of yours I have recalled my letter.' 4 Whilst I am very glad to have i received your explanation of the circumi stances on Mr. Goldie's behalf, yet I do not find that tlie'Act imposes on me any duty in the matter further than to call attention to the fact that Mr. Goldie was ipso facto no longer a member of the Board, and to point out that although no disabilities are imposed on the members of a Board to enter into contracts it) which one of their number is interested, yet the Act clearly intended to put a bar on any such transaction." Other correspondence deals with the charge with which Mr. Upton was concerned, and which has been discussed by the Auckland Board of Education, and with another charge which has also been discussed, the charge for expenses by Messrs. Monk and Goldie, at a time when they were members of the Board. When the return was presented, Mr. Shera said that portions of the correspondence had appeared in the Auckland papers, and, as the names of well-known gen'lemen were mentioned, the return, in justice to them, ought to be printed. The Premier objected to the printing of the letters, as the matters dealt with were only of a local concern. He said that if the return was sent to be printed, the committee would consider the question as to whether it should be printed at his suggestion.

Mr. Shera withdrew his motion, and the return was then sant to the Printing Committee.