THE HOUSE GRANTS AN INQUIRY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1745, 16 August 1905, Page 18

THE HOUSE GRANTS AN INQUIRY.

AUDITOR-GENERAL TO HEAR EVIDENCE. The House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon was for nearly three hours again occupied with a discussion on the charges made hy Mr Fisher. The question was raised by. the presentation of the following petition by the Premier : The Hon the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The Petition of James Barnes Heywood, Secretary to the Treasury. Robert Joseph Collins, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. Thomas Francis Grey, Acting for Under-Secretary for Defence. 1. It was recently alleged in Parliament that a payment of the sum of <£76 4s 9d out of public moneys for reorganising defence stores. had been made, through the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch, to Captain Seddon, an officer in the Permanent Forces of the colony, the date of such payment being the 9th June, 1904, and the number of the voucher 15,819. 2. Your petitioners were asked by memorandum from the Right Honourable the Colonial Treasurer (who is also Defence Minister) to inquire and state whether such payment had been made 3. From the hooks and records of the Defence Department, and the Treasury, your petitioners satisfied themselves that there was no such voucher or payment, and gave certificates accordingly; the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch also by memorandum ~ stated that no such payment had been made by him. 4. In the course of their investigations yonr petitioners discovered a voucher for payment by the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch to one Richard Sneddon, ot the sum of .£76 4s 9d, the date of payment being June 9th, 1904, and the number of the voucher 15,819. 5. Thereupon it was stated in Parliament that in the previous allegation a mistake had* been made as to the identity of the voucher, but that a payment of between .£7O and <£Bo had. in fact, been improperly made to Captain Seddon. in Christchurch, for reorganising defence stores, and that a voucher for the payment existed, and had been seen. 6. At tbe request of the Right Honourable the Colonial Treasurer and Defence Minister, your petitioners then made further search, and after satisfying themselves on the point, gave certificates that no such voucher had been made and passed through the Treasury, and that no trace of any claim by or payment to Captain Seddon of any sum whatever for the reorganisation of defence stores could be found. 7. These certificates were laid before Parliament, but the allegation of the payment and voucher was reiterated, and it was also stated that it was not fair for the Premier to ask your petitioners to make a report upon such a matter, knowing perfectly well that it would prejudice their case to report in a manner adverse to the Premier.

8. Your petitioners feel strongly that such a statement involves a grave reflection on their integrity, as well as their independence. The system in force in connection with the issue of public moneys is so complete that if any such voucher Or payment had been issued, or made, it could not fail to be discovered, even though the voucher itself had been destroyed. There was therefore no room for honest mistake on their part in the certificates they gave. They consequently feel that the statement in question amounts to a charge of deliberate dishonesty. lour petitioners therefore humbly pray that in order to give them an opportunity of vindicating themselves, the Controller and Auditor-General, who is an officer of Parliament, be directed to inquire and report to your Honourable House whether the certificates in question are correct in substance and in fac and whether any such voucher exists, or was ever issued and passed through the Treasury, or any such payment was ever made. . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. (Sd.) JAS. B. HEYWOOD, Secretary to the Treasury. (Sd.) It. J. COLLINS, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. (Sd.) T. F. GREY, Acting for Under-Secretary for Defence. THE PREMIER'S MOTION. Mr Seddon moved that the petition be referred to the Auditor and Controller - General in the following terms: — That the Controller and Auditor-General be requested to inquire into and report in terms of the prayer of the petition, such inquiry to include the whole period of Captain Seddon’s employment in the public service. Honest men, said the Pi’emler, bad no fear o-f the light of day. (Hear, hear.) If this matter were allowed to rest where it was on the previous afternoon, there would be an inference created that there was something to conceal. (Hear, hear.) The ordinary man would not grasp that which others of experience would consider —namely, that the effect of holding an inquiry upon an officer’s conduct would lead to the inference that there was something requiring to he inquired into. The effect of holding an inquiry would in itself be a reflection, but no man who valued his reputation in this world could ’let such a matter rest where it was, for if the charge were not refuted, it might come n-n in after veans. and mrsht at all

times be produced against him. It wa» to obviate this that such, a course as h4l now proposed was taken, but beyond that there was this mutual appeal ta every hon member of the House*—tha4f if they could not rely on and trust thi£ highe§t officers they had, in respect to their finances, all confidence was shaken. (Hear, hear.) And there was no doubt? that public confidence would be shaken: in this matter were it not pursued further. It had been said, and had appeared in print, that from the relative positions of Ministers and these officers, certain replies could only be expected' to the memorandums that were forwarded to them. In regard to a high Government officer who had served for years under past Ministries, it wouldi be natural that he should feel deeply, grieved that such conclusion should be arrived at by any person in the colony, and the only natural redress that he could have was to appeal to his masters. His masters were on the floor of the* House. The Auditor-General was above Ministers. His position was clearly defined in respect to the heads of departments. They were all, so far as he was concerned, liable to that which he deemed to he in the interests of the colony, and more especially was he there to safeguard the public purse and’ public expenditure and receipts. The Auditor-General was a Parliamentary officer, and if there was any matter which he considered necessary to bring before the representatives of the people, he did not hesitate to do so through the Speaker. In the present case, if any payment was made, it must have gone through the Audit, and the Auditor-General kept a check, for every, voucher had to be submitted for audit. The Auditor-General had power, undetf the Public Revenues Act, to call upon every officer in the service to give him, any information he required, and to assist him in his search, to enable him to report accurately upon every question that came under purview. There was no escape from giving information to the Auditor-General, and the petitioners desired that there should be no escape, so far as men could honestly, and in the faithful performance of their duty, give information. They had done all that was possible to endeavour to find out whether any such payment was made to Captain Seddon or any other officer, and the only payment they could; find was a payment made to Richard! Sneddon. There was no other voucher, that could he found. The hooks of thei Treasury and of the Defence Department had been examined, and there was no trace whatever of any such payment. It was impossible for it to have been made without a record of it being kept. For every payment that Captain Seddon had received, luckily for him, account had been kept in the bank; every payment had gone through his bankers, and every shilling he had received, either as an Imperial payment or salary or allowances since he had been in the Government service, had, been compared, and there was no trace whatever 1 of any such payment. It was quite’possible that the officers who had given these certificates would also, before the Auditor-General, make oath that these vouchers and this payment were never made. If the AuditorGeneral, after this investigation, reported that there had been some serious mistake, and that someone had. misled the member for Wellington, he had no doubt the hon member would then admit his error. He, therefore, asked the House to agree to the proposal he had suggested, which he considered was ai step in the right direction, for what was proposed was only just. Naturally these officers felt deeply incensed and pained that it should be thought for a moment that they might have given certificates which were not founded upon fact. He thought he was safe in saying that a report from the Speaker to the House upon this question wouldi remove anxieties, and allay all fears, and would remove a slur that had been cast upon those public officers. Then members would have another opportunity of discussing this matter, and the House would be in a position to decide whether further action was necessary or otherwise. If further* action was necessary to elucidate this question, then the House must be prepared to take it. The hon member would* agree with him that this petition should be referred to the Auditor and Con-troller-General. Mr Massey was very glad to hear that the Premier and the principal officers of the more important departments intended to take steps to meet the serious charges made against them on the previous day. There might be political differences, but nobody would be better pleased than he if those officers could establish their integrity. He felt, however, that the proposal did not go far enough—it referred only to the one payment to Captain Seddon - Chorus of members: No, no; all the payments. . Mr Massey was glad to hear it. He was going to suggest that that should be done. He did not believe in any indemnity being given to Civil servants in connection with the matter. If those Civil servants told the truth and did their duty, public opinion would protect them; if they did not, they must take the consequences. He hoped the report of the inquiry would not be unnecessarily delayed. Mr Fisher said that on the previous day. he had expressed the hope that the

Premier would make an endeavour to olear the mystery up, and he now congratulated the Premier on taking the proper course. No one would be more pleased than he (Mr Fisher) to see the matter cleared up, and he believed that in placing the affidavits before the House he had justified the position he had taken up. He denied that he had cast any aspersions upon departmental heads. He had said that Mr R. J. Collins was / a tried officer of long standing and experience. The position was that when the House had a statement to one effect from heads of departments and affidavits of men who had handled vouchers to another effect, there must be something wrong. It went to show that a payment - might have been made without the knowledge of the heads of departments. He wanted to ask the Premier whether the Auditor-General would be authorised, under his powers, to examine the men whose names he had handed to the Speaker? Mr Seddon: Yes. Mr Fisher: Will the Premier give a guarantee that those men will be examined ? . Mr Seddon: The Auditor-General has full and complete powers under the . act. Mr Fisher took it that.' the AuditorGeneral had full power to call up all persons and papers, and there was little doubt the men whose affidavits were before the House would he called. Members: Give us the names. Mr Fisher explained that the matter was a difficult one, because, although exclamatory assurances had been given in the House that these men would be fairly dealt with, things had happened which showed that the House was not the place to look for fair play. Look at the Meikle case. Although two Parliamentary committees had reported his case for favourable consideration, how had they treated him? There were innumerable similar cases. He wanted to know if the inquiry would be open to the public and press, or would it be a departmental inquiry? Could he (Mr Fisher) go before the Auditor-General and give up his information ? Mr Taylor said there was no doubt the happenings of the last few weeks had impeached the integrity of certain officers of the department, and it was quite natural they should ask the House to give them an opportunity to removS f any suggestion of improper conduct. No one could find fault with the ~ petition. The only question was whether the tribunal which it was proposed to set up was a reasonable one. No doubt the l Auditor-General was a servant of Parliament, but it must be apparent to any man that the AuditorGeneral had been severely castigated by Ministers in years past, and - had .been told that he ■would he superseded if he dare continue to carry on his pin-prick policy of complaint. Mr Seddon: That statement is inaccurate. There has never been any threat. Mr Taylor: Not in express terms, but by innuendo. He was quite clear that this was dome on more than one occasion, and lion members would recol- ■ lect that when the Auditor-General had seen fit to challenge the accuracy of certain vouchers and payments, he had been subjected,, to criticism in the House which had been distinctly partisan. He (Mr Taylor) felt inclined to place implicit' reliance in the AuditorGeneral’s judgment, but the member for Wellington had rightly asked for an inquiry where the public interest would get satisfaction, and where members would be admitted. The member for

Wellington, who had a very important personal interest in this question, would naturally want to be allowed to appear, and to see how . the investigation was conducted. Surely, now that the matter had assumed the phase it had in the public mind, it was only right to be fair, and everything in the nature of a secret inquiry should be avoided.

He favoured a Parliamentary inquiry, where every member could go in and see for himself whether the inquiry was being properly conducted. They had a right to know whether the Auditor-General would hold the inquiry with closed doors, and whether members would be allowed access to the evidence given. The member for Wellington had placed in the hands of the Speaker documentary evidence, which, in the opinion of ninety-nine out of

every one hundred people, would be sufficient justification fox having demanded on the floor of the House some explanation of'the payment made. He had not said that the payment was improperly made, but he did say that it was a question on which he was entitled to information. These affidavits had no doubt cleared away the doubt which might have been on his shoulders on the 28th July. Hie (Mr Taylor) had seen the affidavits; as a matter of fact, he had thought it wise to secure a second lot of the affidavits, and he himself had got the originals of these affidavits, sworn to by the men who had made them. These men, he was satisfied, had no complaints regarding their position in the State employ, but they believed they were citizens as well as public servants, and as free men they had a perfect right to ask in their own interest as taxpayer® that the merits of the transaction should be inquired into. The request that the men should have an indemnity in case they gave evidence wa® an exceedingly reasonable one. and he could not see now why the

Government should have refused to give them an indemnity. The member for Wellington asked for a judicial tribunal, where one or two Judges of the Supreme Court would have taken evidence on oath, and allowed the member for Wellington to appear in support of his position. Then the inquiry would have been a full public inquiry, open to the press, which would have safeguarded the public interest. Now, however, it had been narrowed down to what would amount to a departmental inquiry. The member for Wellington, by the production of these affidavits, bad completely exonerated himself in the eyes of his mvn constituents, and in the eyes of the general public. He trusted that the inquiry would be. of such a character that it would satisfy members on all sides of the House, and hoped that it would finally settle the matter in dispute. Mr Lewis was satisfied, after listening to the debates in which the AuditorGeneral’s name had been bandied about, that that officer was just as independent as ever he wasand he (Mr Lewis) was also satisfied there vj-ould he no leaning towards the side. Mr Taylor’s suggestions ’’were not warranted. Mr Fisher could reach the Audit or-General by writing to him, stating that he had certain information bearing' upon the matter, and asking to he called. If Mr Fisher was not called after that, then the House and country would know that the inquiry had not been properly carried out. Mr Duthie said he had every confidence in the Auditor-General, whom he had known for very many years, hut, all the same, this was a very important matter for the House, and they were allowing a secondary feature to supersede the main feature. They wanted an inquiry that would either substantiate their colleague, or put him in his proper position. Tibs inquiry was not going to bring out the full facts of the case. It was for the House to fix the judges, not for the men themselves. It was not a proper proceeding, in a grave Parliamentary business, that these officers should name the tribunal by which they were to b© judged. This was a proper matter for a Parliamsyitary Committee to inquire into. A hxlicial inquiry for such a question he had never heard of. By this proposal the Premier did not clear the reputation of his son—the dearest thing to him that ought to be cleared. That .was the gravamen of the whole thing. Let them clear the young man’s reputation, and there was a sufficient sense of high honour in the House to judge the case entirely on its merits. An lion member: Move an amendment.

Mr Duthie: No; I am simply stirred bv a sense of justice. Nothing less than ' a Parliamentary Committee will bo satisfactory. Mr Seddion: I don’t think there will he necessity for anything further after we get the Auditor-General’s report. Mr R. McKenzie did not think that those who had made these charges were very anxious that the matter should be inquired into at all. Not a vest:ge of evidence had been brought before the House since the charges were made. Mr Fisher: I say, as far as this inquiry is concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that the Auditor-General should hold it. but I do say I ought to be allowed to be present. Mr Jennings expressed his satisfaction at the attitude taken up by Mr Lewis on this matter. The member for Courtenay spoke with the true sentiment of a New Zealander. If Moses and all the prophets came on the floor of the House, it would not satisfy some members. Th.e Premier had done well in asking that a gentleman who was respected and esteemed throughout the colony as the Auditor-General was should investigate this case, and when that report came down, he hoped that the business of the country would be allowed to proceed. Mr Wilford. thought every member must be satisfied that the Auditor-Gen-eral was the fittest person to hold an inquiry with reference to State documents and State papers. Outside evidence could not help to find a document in the control of Civil servants. Like members of the House, members of the Oivil Service trusted the Auditor-Gen-eral, and would speak freely before him. He (Mr Wilford) had every confidence that no such document existed as had been stated. Mr Bedford had the utmost confidence in the Auditor-General, but he objected that Mr Fisher could not be present at the inquiry during the proceedings. Mr Baume wanted to know if the names of the men whoso affidavits were put in on the previous day would be sent to the Auditor-General. Mr Fisher: Yes.

Mr Baume did net believe, whatever the result of the inquiry might be—however satisfactory to the majority of members of the House, however it might disperse the charges, and provo them entirely without foundation —the accusations would cease to bo made. They were not likely to liavo the reparation and apology that Mr Fisher had practically promised. Mr Fisher: That is a very British sentiment.

Mr Barnne: Amongst the planks of the party the hon. gentleman belongs to is to be found that of Jew-baiting. That is another matter he takes a pride

in. The hon. gentleman was charged by Mr Mark Cohen, one of the most respected citizens of Dunedin, and a member of the journalistic profession— Mr Speaker: Ido not think that matter can be said to be relevant to this question. Mr Baume: The hon. member has in effect charged me with uttering an unBritish sentiment, and I want to tell how he comes to make that interruption. It has reference to this charge. As editor of the ‘Dunedin Star,” The Speaker: I know to what you are about to refer, and it is not relevant to the subject under discussion. Mr Baume said he would like to know what Mr Fisher thought was meant by a Britisher. “Above allthi ngs,” he said, “what is meant by a Britisher is a man who profeses a love of fair play, a love of honesty, and a love of candour, and I appeal to the House whether the hon. gentleman, in this particular, has manifested these absolutely British qualities? The interruption he made just now would only come from one who has forgotten, if he ever knew, the first principles, of British manhood. . He has reflected upon the origin of a member of this House. Is not every man on the floor of this House equal, as far as being a representative of the people is concerned, to the young man who now professes to scorn a person because he is not of British parentage? Can the lion, gentleman trace his own parentage? Yes; he can trace his parentage to a man who would 1 never have made an interjection such as lie has made, to a man who was long before the country as an honest and honourable man, who would have been shot before he would have been guilty of the conduct the hon. gentleman has displayed throughout this matter. But the Jew-baiting movement was not original with the hon gentleman. It was started in this House by the member for Lyttelton; it was carried on by the member .for Christchurch (Mr Taylor), and it has been cordially adopted by their weak and silly tool, Mr Fisher. Argument cannot be met by abuse, and no argument in this world is contained in a reflection upon a man’s religion or a man’s nationality. My religion is Jewish, as was that of my forefathers, but my nationality is British, as is the hon gentleman’s. Born in this colony, I have the same right to the flag and the same right to the privileges which that flag lias conferred upon its people for long years as he has. Messrs Harding and Major also spoke on the question. AN AMENDMENT REJECTED. Mr Buchanan moved, as an amendment, the addition of the following words to the motion:—“And all payments during the whole period of Captain Seddon’s employment in the public service.” The Premier: I don’t accept the amendment. The amendment was lost by 43 votes to 23. Following is the division list on the amendment:—• * Fox; the , amendment (23) —Aitken, Alison, Bedford, Buchanan, Duthie, Fisher, W. Fraser, Harding, Hardy, Hawkins, Herdman, Herries, Lang, Laurenson, Lethbridge, Lewis, Mander, Massey, Moss, Rhodes, Taylor, J. W. Thomson, Vile. Against (43) —E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barber, Baume, Bennet, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, vDavey, Duncan, Field, Flatman, Fowlds, Graham, Hall, Hall-Jones, Hanan, Hogg, Houston, Jennings, Kidd, Lawry, Major, McGowan, R. McKenzie, McLachlan, McNab. Millar, Mills, Pere, Remington, Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey, Smith, Steward, Symes, Tanner, J. C. Thomson, Wilford, Willis, Witty, Wood, No pairs were recorded. THE PREMIER IN REPLY.

Mi* Seddon, in reply, said a most regrettable incident had just occurred. He -did not think that the member for Wairarapa would have been a party to promoting an inference which lie knew justly in his heart would have teen a grave injustice to his (the Premier’s) son, Captain Seddon. In asking for everything paid to him during the time he served his country in South Africa, the hon. member must have known that the Auditor-General could not get the evidence of persons in regard to these payments in South Africa. This had not been done by the hon member on the spur of the moment, but he had been used as an instrument to do it. Mr Lewis: By whom?

Mr Seddon: He knows best. He (the Premier) could not understand why Captain Seddon should be so persecuted. That was the only proper term he could apply to it. He did not know why this should be done. Did the hon member not realise that hie (the Premier’s) son was on the fringe of life, just as the member for Wellington was—one who had done no wrong, and whose integrity was now assailed. Was he not to have that fair play which might be expected in this country ? The leader of the Opposition had expressed his concurrence in the request made in the petition, and yet they found him supporting the proposal made by the member for Wairarapa. That hon member, after the evidence taken by the Auditor-General, wanted shill more evidence, and to include all payments made in South

Africa, with • the idea that something would have been found against Captain Seddon. Was that fair? Was it just? He (the Premier) had spoken somewhat heatedly just for the moment, but members would realise that he did so because an attempt was made to do a grave'injustice. Members on fcotli sides of the House would admit that so far he had acted calmly and dispassionately, and that he had endeavoured to do credit and honour to the position he held. Probably there would have been very few men who would have behaved as he had done under, the circumstances, but he had tried to subordinate his own feelings in the desire to do what was right. It seemed to have been a case of Sneddon and Seddon, and may be next time, because some person named Sydney or something similar received a payment, then some officer would come to quick conclusions, and say there had been an undue payment to the Premier’s son. He had heard members say that they would not obtain justice from a Parliamentary Committee. In one instance he had known where the committee-had conclusive evidence, but the party who made the allegation refused to face the committee, and he was the one member of the committee who absolutely refused to join in bringing in a unanimous acquittal. He had a vivid recollection of what had transpired. But in taking the course he nowproposed, he was doing that which he had in his mind from the very commencement. If the hon. member for Wellington had allowed his better feelings to prevail, he would now say that there x had been a mistake, and that those who gave him the information were wrong. He thought that was the hon. member’s mind at the present moment. If there was any man in this colony, equal to any two Judges or judicial tribunal, who would act calmly, and dispassionately, it was the AuditorGeneral, and he thought his report would once and for all clear up this matter. The hon. member for Auckland (Mr Baume) was quite right, and the report, when presented, would, not prevent the member for Wellington saying that there was still some doubt about it, and still saying there was a voucher, because why did the Prime Minister allow this matter to go for investigation ? He repeated that the very setting up of an inquiry cast a reflection. Were these proceedings fair?. Would it uplift the colony in the eyes of those outside? A paltry sum of £7O was involved, and it was not now said it was an illegal payment. This was an attempt to assail the father in his position as Prime Minister of the colony. -That was the motive which, actuated the member for Wellington when he made his allegation. Would the member for Wellington put his hand on his heart and say that solely from the call of duty he did this? So long as Mr Fisher was a member of the House, it was right for him to do justice to the people of Wellington; neither would he (the Premier) allow personal feeling to weigh where public duty was concerned, but in this case the honour and integrity nob only of his son, but of the colony, was at stake. Such a reflection as must carry with it a larger and graver reflection. He referred to the people outside. The hon. member knew that he had not been just to him, to those who belonged tc him, nor just to the people of the colony. Was it fair and just for one member to say that he had seen these affidavits, and seventy-nine other members and thousands of electors had not seen them. These would have been used against himself (the Premier) and against officers of the State. It was most un-British. He had never in the whole course of his experience attempted to reflect on the characters of others, yet these men shielded themselves behind some package, and would not disclose names unless they were granted an indemnity. He could not say that the course taken by the non. member for Wellington, who claimed to be a young New Zealander, would do credit to the young New Zealanders in this country. These members claimed to be a party whose desire was for purity of administration, but if villification of public officers or the Ministry was to be their policy, then, he said, perish such a party! Let them justify their existence by politics, by policy, and* by something that would benefit the colony. Their attitude was only dragging the colony and its officers in the mud. What had come to him the last few days? An officer holding a high position in South Africa had a claim against the Imperial Government for the loss of a horse. That came before the Paymaster. It was sent to the Imperial authorities to decide. It took nearly eighteen months before that came back, and was paid in the month of December last. He (the Premier) never knew of the payment. It was a question for the Imperial paymaster, and yet he had heard that that was to be made the subject of a motion on the floor of the House. If the people of this colony would listen, to that sort of thing, and if public men and Ministers were to be judged in this way, and statements made under the cover of privilege on the floor of the House, and the integrity of public officers and Ministers impugned, then there would be an end to the best men seeking a place in Parliament and a place on the Ministerial benches. The right would prevail in the light of day. It was not a Question of holding back in-

', qn£ry. TTa wished to exhaust all the legitimate means at his command, and when that inquiry had been made by tiie officers whose duty it was to safeguard the public puree, he hoped the toon member for Wellington would do what he ought to have done, and make complete reparation .- EXPLANATIONS. In a personal explanation, Mr Buchanan denied emphatically that he had had any such motive as charged against him by the Premier in connection with the amendment. Captain Seddon’s South African service had never entered his mind. Mr Lewis explained'that he had given the amendment to Mr Buchanan. Mr Seddon accepted the explanation, and said, that he had had to study the effect more than the motive. Mr Fisher, in a personal explanation, repeated that he still felt that he was performing his duty as a member of the House, and he was not governed by personal feelings. The affidavits were given voluntarily and with a free will, and to say they were forced from the officers was incorrect. As for the envelope given to the Speaker,, it was still sealed and bound as when it was handed up, and would not be opened except in the presence of the AuditorGeneral. When it was opened the information found would deal solely and entirely with payments to Captain Seddon. The Premier's motion was agreed to on the voices.