MR. FISHER’S CHARGES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1746, 23 August 1905, Page 18

MR. FISHER’S CHARGES.

PETITION FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY. AFFIDAVITS DISCLOSED. CAPTAIN SEDDON’S DENIAL. FURTHER DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. Tn the House of Representatives on the 15th imst., Mr Fisher asked for leave to present a petition from Messrs J. Willis, W. J. Larcombe, and T. W. West, of Christchurch, officers in the Civil Service. He was proceeding to read the contents of the petition, when his action was called into question by the Premier. Mr Seddon said he understood the names signed to the -petition were those of oeitain officers who had taken action in respect to a matter which had been before the House. The House had ordered an inquiry to be modes,: and he therefore asked whether this petition should proceed further. He did so under standing-order 315. He asked whether this petition, trenching as it did— — Mr Herries: You don’t now. Mr Seddon: I have a right to presume, and it is for Mr Speaker to say whether or not this objection is in conformity with the standing-orders of the House. Mr Taylor : The petition hasn’t been read yet. Why do you fear a petition that hasn’t been read? Mr Seddon thought members would recognise that the course he was taking was a proper one. He knew it would probably be said that the action he was taking was for the purpose of preventing these petitioners obtaining the right to have what they asked for in their petition, but Parliament having directed the Auditor-General to inquire and report, the matter to which the petition referred to was therefore sub judioe, and should not be dealt with in any way by Parliament until the report of the Auditor-General was received. The position was the same as though- the matter had been referred to a Parliamentary Committee. Mr Taylor rose to a point of order. The Premier was discussing the character of the contents of 'the petition, which had not yet been read. Was the Premier justified in going into argument on a point of order? The Speaker said he was giving the Premier the same latitude as he would allow to other members. Mr Seddon maintained that the petition could not be received, as it was contrary to the standing-orders. Mr Fisher: You don’t know what’s in it yet. Mr Seddon: I know sufficient from the names given of officers of the department who have made the declaration. I am giving reasons for intercepting the petition. As leader of the House, I have a right to prevent an innovation which would be dangerous in the extreme. I shall object to the affidavits going to the Auditor-General. Mr Fisher: I would like to ask whether the House is discussing the affidavits or the petition ?. Mr Seddon said that in a Court of law the action of the hon. member that day would have been regarded as contempt of Court. Mr Taylor pointed out that the Premier had now made a statement that this petition contained affidavits. The petition contained no affidavits, and was the Premier, therefore, conforming to' the orders of the House? The Speaker : As soon as the Premier sits down, I will give a ruling on the point. . Mr Seddon considered that as the matter was sub judice, the same rule would apply in this case as though the question had been referred to a Parliamentary Committee. Mr Taylor pointed out that members of the Ministry had asked that these men should come out into the open, and immediately they did so, the Premier tried to suppress them by every device in his power. The Premier rose to a point of order. The hon. member’s statement was not supported by fact. It was a -pure supposition. Mr Taylor said the meanest citizen in the colony had a rieht to ask for protection, and yet the Premier would not hear the reasons why the petitioners desired to be heard. The public would put their own construction on the Premier’s attitude. This matter was not sub judice. It was purely a departmental inquiry, and if it were held that because a matter had been referred to* a departmental officer it should not be discussed, then the House would become absolutely paralysed. He asked whether members would be prepared to thus have their powers reduced. A great principle was at stake. If the Parliament was the final Court of Appeal in New Zealand, then it must preserve its power intact. . ' ~ The Speaker, having read the petition, ruled that it was in perfect order. It simply asked that an inquiry which had been ordered by the House should he extended. Having ruled that the petition was in order, it was for the House to say whether it would proceed further with it or not. THE PETITION. Mr Fisher then presented the folio 7 ring petition:—

To the Hon the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,— The humble petition of the undersigned Joseph Willis, William John Larcombe, and Thomas Walter West, of the City of Christchurch, showeth: 1. That your petitioners are on the staff of the Civil Service of New Zealand, and are employed in the General Post Office in the City of Christchurch. 2. That your petitioners are informed that your honourable House has appointed the Auditor-General to hold an inquiry with reference to ian alleged payment to Captain R. J. S. Seddon of a snm of <£7o or thereabouts for reorganising the defence stores at Wellington. 3. That your petitioners have reason to believe that they are likely to be called as witnesses at such inquiry. 4. That your petitioners believe that in the interests of all parties concerned such inquiry should be open to the press, and that the witnesses thereat should be cross-examined by or on behalf of Captain F. M. B. Fisher, a member of your honourable House. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your honourable House will be pleased to direct that the said inquiry shall be open to the press, and that all witnesses thereat may be cross-ex-amined either by Captain Jig, M. B. Fisher or by some other person on bis behalf. . , , And your petitioners as m duty bound will ever pray. (Signed) J. WILLIS. W. J. LARCOMBE. T. W. WEST. COUNTER PETITION. Mr Seddon presented the following petition from Captain Seddon : To the Honourable the House of Representatives of the Colony of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, — The petition of Richard John Spotswood Seddon, of Wellington, Captain, humbly showeth: That annexed hereto is a statutory declaration by me denying the accuracy of the statement made by Mr F. M. _ B. Fisher, M.H.R., that I had received a payment of between <£7o and <£Bo, or any other sum for reorganising the defence store®. Yonr petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House will be pleased to cause the said declaration to be considered in the course of auy inquiry* relating to the alleged payment. (Signed) R. J. S. SEDDON.

The Premier asked leave to attach to the petition an affidavit from Captain Seddon. Mr Herries raised a point of order that no documents could be attached to a petition. _ . Mr Seddon explained that he desired the affidavit to go to the Auditor-Gene-ral. Mr Fisher had admitted that the affidavits in his care had gone to the Auditor-General, and he (Mr Seddon) asked that the same course should be adopted in connection with the present affidavit from Captain Seddon. An hon member: Why doesn’t he send it himself? Mr Speaker upheld the contention of Mr Herries. Mr Seddon: Surely there can he no objection to the course I propose to take. He then commenced to read the document, hut hardly had he got two words out before both Mr Eisher and Mr Taylor were on their feet with points of order to prevent continuance of the reading of the document. In the lull that followed the Speaker’s ruling, Mr Seddon made another effort to read the affidavit, and Mr Taylor again sprang to a point of order. He wanted to know if the Premier was the only privileged individual in the House. The Speaker stated that the Premier was asking the House to give him leave to move the suspension of the standing orders, so that the document could be attached to the petition. Mr Seddon explained that that was so. Mr Wilford objected to documents being attached to petitions. He could, see the opening it would give to certain members. Mr Taylor: Yes; we would get our three affidavits in right away. Mr Fisher: If the Premier can read his affidavit, can I read my three? Mr Seddon then formally asked that the standing order should fce suspended in order that the petition might be received with the declaration attached. Mr Massey rose to make a remark, but, on being interrupted by Mr Wilford, sat down, and said he objected to the permission asked for being granted. As one dissent is sufficient to prevent a standing order being suspended, the petition was put in without the declaration. THE DECLARATION. The following is the declaration: — I, Richard John Spotswood Seddon, of Wellington, captain, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as folloivs:! (1) During the whole period of my employment in. the Public Service of New Zealand, I have never received from the Imperial or New Zealand Government any payment whatever in Christchurch. (2) I have never performed any services in or about reorganising defence stores. (3) I have never received in Christchurch or elsewhere any payment of between £7O and ! J6BO, or any other sum for reorganising defence stores, either from the Imperial or New Zealand Government. (4) I have read the statement made by Mr Fisher, M.H.R., - with respect to a voucher for a payment to me of between £7O [ and £BO, and I say that I never saw or received or signed any

such voucher or received any such, payment. - - (5) I have never at any time or at any place received any sum or sums of money whatever from the New Zealand or Imperial Governments to which I was not legally and properly entitled under the terms of my engagement as a servant or officer of either of the said Governments. (Signed) R. J, S. SEDDON, Sworn before D. M. Findlay, , Solicitor. THE THREE AFFIDAVITS. Following are the affidavits contained in the sealed package already referred to:—I. I, William John Larcombe, of the City of Christchurch, in New Zealand, a clerk in the General Post Office at Christchurch, make oath and say a® follows:—• (1) That I am a clerk employed in the General Post Office at - Christchurch. (2) That at some date in the year 1904 there passed through my hands a voucher made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation) of defence stores at Wellington. (3) That such voucher is for an amount exceeding £7O. (4) That I showed the said voucher to Joseph Willis, a clerk in the Chief Clerk’s room at the Christchurch Dost Office(s) The amount of such voucher was charged against the Defence vote, but I cannot remember which part of such vote, (6) That at the time I showed the said voucher to the said Joseph Willis we both remarked on the fact of such voucher being made payable at Christchurch. (Signed) W. J. LARCOMBE. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905 — C. E. SALTER, A Solicitor of the Supreme Court. 11.

I, Joseph Willis, of the City of Christ* church. New Zealand, clerk in thA General Post Office, make oath and say as follows: (1) That I am a clefk employed in the Chief Clerk’s office in the General Post Office, Christchurch. (2) That some time during the year 1904 I saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation of defence stores at Wellington. (3) That such voucher was for an amount exceeding £7O. (4) That the said voucher was shown to me hy William J. Larcombe, a clerk employed in the Chief Clerk’s room in the Post Office at Christchurch. (5) I distinctly remember that the amount of such voucher was charged against Defence vote, but which part of such vote I cannot remember. (6) That at the time* the voucher was shown to me by the said William James Larcombe we both remarked on the fact of such voucher being made payable in Christchurch. (Signed) J. WILLIS. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905 c E SALTER, A Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. 111. I. Thomas Walter. West, of the City of Christchurch, New Zealand, a clerk in the General Post Office, make oath and say as follows: (1) That I am a clerk employed in the office of the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch,, (2) That some time during the year 1904 I saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J.. S. Seddon for reorganisation of defence storßS* . (3) That such voucher was for an amount exceeding £7O. (Signed) T. W. WEST'. Sworn at Christchurch this 4th day of August, 1905. C. E. Salter, etc. CHRISTCHURCH, August 15. In explanation of -the conflict of testimony between the Treasury officials and the Christchurch Post Officq clerks as to the alleged “Seddon voucher,” it is suggested locally that the voucher might have been made out here, but payment refused by the Audit Department, in which case both side® would be in the right. CHRISTCHURCH, August 17. Messrs Willis, -Larcombe,, and West, Post Office officials here, left for Wei-*, lington to-night to give evidence at the inquiry being held by the AuditorGeneral in regard to the voucher allegations. “LOCAL” VOUCHERS. The suggestion made in Christchurch, and telegraphed by the Press Association, that the Seddon voucher might have been made out there and payment refused by the Audit Department, has been the subject of. amused comment in Civil Service circles. Those who have to do with payments of public moneys state that it would be quite impossible to make out vouchers and pass payments locally. When a voucher is made out for payment for supplies or services it is sent to "Wellington after examination, is there further investigated, and charged up against the particular vote which should bear the payment, and finally signed by the Undersecretary. Without hie signature it is

of no value, an<l cannot possibly be recognised or cashed by a public offioer. When the departmental offioers have approved the account it goes on the .Audit Department, and there undergoes a further .examination, particularly as to whether it is a legitimate charge upon the particular vote. If it is approved by the audit, it is sent on to the Treasury where a cheque for. the amount is made out. If the person to whom the money is to be paid dees not live in Wellington the voucher is sent down to the postmaster of. the place where he lives, with an instruction to pay the amount. At the same time, the person receives official notioe that he will receive his cheque at the post office. When he goes there he has to receipt the. voucher, and the postmaster then countersigns his cheque, which may then be cashed at the bank against the public account. By countersigning the cheque the postmaster makes himself responsible for returning the voucher, with the acquittance, to the department. He merely acts as an , agent for the Treasury. There is no record whatever of the payments in- the post office. But the vouchers and authgrity to pay must come from the Treasury, and no payment could be made otherwise, exoept, of course, at the personal risk of the payer. Nor is it possible that a voucher, if once made out and sent to the department, could be effaced from the records. It is provided by law that an alphabetical record must be kept of every account that reaches the departmental offices, even if it is not paid, and it must be stated what happens to each.