THE VOUCHER INQUIRY. THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1748, 6 September 1905, Page 16

THE VOUCHER INQUIRY.

THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE

THE EVIDENCE. The documents and evidence in the case cover forty-six slips of closely typewritten matter. This includes the order of reference and the correspondence covering it, Mr Fisher’s sworn statement as to his allegations, and the affidavits of Messrs Willis, West, and Lanoombe. The following is a close digest of the evidence:— THOMAS WALTER WEST. T. W. West, a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office, stated that during 1904 he saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J, S. Seddon for the reorganisation of the defence stores, the voucher being for an amount exceeding £7O. The voucher was for a payment made by Treasury cheque, and, to the best of his belief, was paid to the signature of R. J. S. Seddon. It was witness’s duty to deal with th© vouchers for the payments made by Treasury cheques to be countersigned ' by the Chief Postmaster. The practice in dealing with such vouchers was that the envelop© in which the vouchers were received from the Treasury were opened by him, the Treasury stamp indicating the contents. On the payee presenting the ohequ© it was taken by witness, and after he had found the relative voucher he handed the cheque to the Chief Postmaster, and the voucher to the payee fbr the payee’s signature. The Chief Postmaster relied upon witness to see that the vouchers were properly receipted by the persons presenting the cheques, and the Postmaster very seldom saw the vouchers, or was informed of the 'name of the person presenting the cheque. The voucher, after being receipted,’ was entered by number and amount in the Treasury voucher book, and then ‘posted to the Treasury in Wellington. Although witness and MoBeth worked in the same room where the'cheques wer© presented and countersigned, Mcßeth did not know the persons presenting the cheques unless, they fwere frequent visitors, or he made parinquiries. He did not recollect tJw absolute payment of the voucher mad© out in fAvour of R. J. S. Seddon. It might have been made while he was out of the room, but the payment would then be made by the countersigning officer. The voucher would then be placed on his table to deal with. He had no recollection of having mentioned the payment to anyone in the Post Office, though he might have done so. The first mention he made of the matter to Mr Fisher was on his application for information after the matter had been exploited in the newspapers and the Sneddon voucher had been disclosed. He then discussed the matter with Larcombe and Willis. With these exceptions, he had mentioned the matter to nobody. He did not recollect the month of the payment, but thought it was early in 1904. “ All the particulars I can give of the voucher,” continued the witness,. “ are that it was for a payment, made at the Christchurch Post Office by a Treasury cheque to he countersigned by the Chief Postmaster or other countersigning officer of the Chief Post Office, *nd that the amount was for a sum exceeding £7O. My impression is that the amount-did not exceed £BO, and that, though I cannot say positively, it is such an amount as is recorded in the Chief Postmaster’s Treasury voucher book as No. 93,470, for £76 55.” Witness did not distinctly recollect how the voucher was charged, hut thought it was against the defence vote. With regard to Mr Mcßeth’s telegram that no payment had ever been made in his office to Captain Seddon, witness stated that Mr Mcßeth’s memory could not be relied upon to enable him to say positively what the telegram stated as to a transaction so long ago. He had the greatest respect for Mr Mcßeth, but his memory was not reliable. WILLIAM JOHN LARCOMBE. W. J. Larcombe, a clerk in the Christchurch Post Office, stated that at some time during 1904 he saw a Treasury voucher, which passed through his hands, for an amount exceeding £7O, made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon for reorganisation of the defence stores at Wellington. He showed the voucher to Willis. . The amount was charged against the defence vote, but he could not remember what part of the vote. Mr West, who ordinarily dealt with the vouchers, was out at the time, which accounted for the voucher passing through witness’s hands. The Chief Postmaster in that case would have dealt with the payment, and placed the voucher in a basket, which it was witness’s duty to clear. He distinctly recollected that under the head of particulars in the voucher were the words for “ reorganisation of the defence stores at Wellington,” and that the amount was charged against the defence vote. His attention' was drawn to the vote by Willis, who was a volunteer. He pointed out the vote to witness when he had drawn his attention to the voucher. He took the voucher from the Chief Postmaster’s room to the chief clerk’s room to show it to Willis before

placing it on West’s table. He did not afterwards see the voucher, and took no particulars as to the date, number, or precise amount. When West, rei turned to his room he mentioned the voucher to hing and told him to go and look at it. It was a receipted voucher for a Treasury cheque, countersigned by Mr Mcßeth. He did not remember the month, but it was early in 1904. From that date the voucher was not mentioned by him outside the office until July 31st of this year. It was mentioned from time to time in the office. On July 31st, Mr Fisher interviewed him, and witness said he would be prepared to swear before a. Judge of the Supreme Court that a voucher had passed through the Post Office at Christchurch, payable to R. J. S. Seddon, for reorganising the defence stores. Witness was perfectly satisfied the amount exceeded £7O. As to Mcßeth’s telegram, he would say that Mcßeth’s memory was so bad that he could not recollect the payment if he had made it. With regard to the record of Treasury vouchers paid at the Chief Post. Office, speaking generally, the voucher in question must have been entered in it. He would refer to that record for any payment made at Christchurch with confidence that he would find it there. He could not positively fix th© amount, but he would state that “ a payment by Treasury cheque of between £7O and £IOO was made to R. J. S. Seddon, at Christchurch, for reorganising the defence stores at. Wellington.” JOSEPH WILLIS. Joseph Willis, clerk in the Post Of fice at Christchurch, stated that during 1904 he saw a voucher made out in favour of R. J. S. Seddon, for the reorganisation of the defence stores at Wellington, for an amount exceeding £7O. The voucher was shown to him by Larcombe. He distinctly remembered that the amount was charged against the defence vote, but which part of the vote he could not remember. He and Larcombe both remarked on the fact of the voucher being made payable in Christchurch. LarcombeV motive in showing the voucher was to point the fact that the amount was payable to Captain Seddon, the Premier’s son, that the payment was for reorganising defence stores at Wellington, and that it was made in Christchurch. The voucher seemed peculiar in that it was made payable in Christchurch. It could only be the receipted voucher which Larcombe handled. He could not remember whether Seddon’s receipt was for a Treasury cheque countersigned by Mcßeth. He remembered West’s comments on the voucher. At Larcombe’s instigation, West went and looked at the voucher, and after coming back, commented on the peculiarity of the payment. He had not since seen the voucher. His only doubt as to the voucher appearing on record among th© Treasury vouchers at Christchurch would be a possible omission to enter the voucher, but this was very remoteThe payment was under £IOO. The matter was not mentioned by him outside the office until Mr Fisher applied to him. As Fisher said the payment was made in June, and was for about £76, witness looked up his record of Treasury vouchers in the Chief Post Office, and from that record gave him the number and amount of the voucher nearest to the amount that he quoted. The date of tb© payment was not entered in the record, and witness must have given him the date as between June 9th and June 14th. 1904, because there were no vouchers written up between those dates. The vouchers returned to the Postmaster-General on a given date were often for payments made many days before. With regard to Mcßeth’s telegram, witness said that Mcßeth had a very bad memory, and was absolutely unable to remember whether Captain Seddon was ever in his office, or if ever such a payment was made. He had served under Mcßeth for a long time. Some weeks ago Mr Morris, the chief clerk, came out of Mcßeth’s room,- saying to witness and Larcombe, “I just remarked to Mr Mcßeth what a handy thing it was to have a man in the office who could write shorthand and use the typewriter. Mcßeth’s reply was, ‘Oh, yes, Mr. Larcombe.’ ” This was in spite of the fact that Larcombe does not write shorthand or use the typewriter. It was notorious in the office that McBeth’s memory was bad. ' THE AFFIDAVITS. J. Willis, recalled, added that ho had made his affidavit voluntarily, and not under any pressure. Ho had no grievance against the postal, mil.horibios or against the Government. Had not applied for an increase ol salary for the last twelve years. W. J. Larcombe also staled on recall that he had given his evidence voluntarily. Ho had no grievance against the postal authorities or the Government. He would he perfectly satisfied to have Willis inspect the vouchers. A RE-EXAMINATION.

Thomas Walter West, re-examined, said he wished to have recorded bis denial of any grievance against either the Government or the Postal Department. He had been in Mr Mcßeth’s room when that gentleman was making a confidential reoort on his officers, and

Mcßeth had turned to him now and then, and asked what branches some of bis officers were in. H© was satisfied to depend on Mr Willis to examine and inspect the vouchers. His affidavit was made voluntarily. Mr Fisher had not pressed him to make it. He had given Fisher to understand that he had no doubt as to the existence of the voucher. OTHER RECOLLECTIONS. David Hobson Lundon, clerk in the Post Office, Christchurch, said on oath that h© was employed from April Ist, 1903, to January, 1904, in the Chief Postmaster’s own office particularly, and in the chief clerk’s room. In the Chief Postmaster’s room hri - - was principally to deal with vouchers received from- the Paymaster-General for payments made in Christchurch. On the payee presenting the Treasury cheque for counter-signature, he had to look up the voucher hearing the corresponding number, take the payee’s receipt, and submit the cheque to the Chief Postmaster. He did not submit the voucher 1 with the cheque, and the Chief Postmaster countersigned the cheque always without asking the payee’s name. The first intimation he (witness) had of the voucher in question was from the newspapers. “I cannot recollect any particular voucher,” continued the witness, ‘ "but I do recollect seeing a voucher receipted by R. J. S. Seddon. I do not recollect the amount of it, or what service it was for. I cannot recollect the date. The only thing I recollect, besides the voucher receipted by R. J. S. Seddon, was what appeared to me to he the youthful handwriting. I had no communication whatever with Mr Fisher. I did not know him before yesterday (the 20 th), when I met him for the first time.” When witness saw the newspaper report of the question raised about the voucher, he recollected having seen R. J. S'. Seddon’s signature to a voucher. He had no idea that Larcombe, Willis, or West knew any tiling about the voucher. He seldom met those officers. About a week after the report in the papers, he met Larcombe, and voluntarily remarked having seen the Seddon voucher in the Chief Postmaster’s room, which must have been prior to 1904. As to the record of Treasury vouchers: When enough had accumulated, they would be posted to the Treasury after the number and amount of each had been entered in the Treasury voucher-book (produced). Any voucher paid in Christchurch on the Chief Postmaster’s counter-signature to a Treasury cheque would be entered in that book. He was sure that th© voucher receipted by R. J. S. Seddon was a Treasury voucher. RICHARD MORRIS. Richard Brabazon Morris, clerk in the Chief Post Office, Christchurch., since November, 1903, gave details of the office procedure with Treasury vouchers, which, on arrival from the Treasury, were opened by the Chief Post-master or his assistant- After giving similar evidence to the preceding witness as to the counter-signature, witness said he did not see how the Chief Postmaster could be sure about any payee having received payment in his office. As a rule, receipted vouchers were sent back to the Treasury once or twice a week. The Chief Postmaster’s book should be a reliable record of paid vouchers returned to the Treasury. If a voucher alleged to be paid on a Treasury cheque countersigned at the Chief Post Office were not found entered in the book, it would not have been paid. Mr Willis’s evidence as to the circumstances under which he supplied information to Mr Fisher agreed with what Willis had told him prior to leaving Christchurch for the inquiry. “When the names of the officers were published who made the affidavits as to the existence of the voucher,” said the witness, “I said to Larcombe, ‘Surely you are making some mistake.’ To which he replied, ‘Oh, no, I am nob. As a matter of fact, I mentioned it to my wife at the time when I saw the voucher.’ ” Witness did not himself recollect ever seeing or hearing of a voucher payable at Christchurch to R. J. S. 'Seddon. Larcombe, Willis, West, and Lundon were, as far as he knew, exemplary in conduct in and out of the office, and he had complete confidence in them as trustworthy men. Their work was of a confidential nature. THE POSTMASTER.

John Frame Mcßeth, Chief Postmaster at Christchurch since January, 1903, gave evidence agreeing with c-liar of previous witnesses as to the reoeiving, payment, receipting, and returning of Treasury vouchers. As to the question whether there exists or was over passed through his office a voucher for the payment to R. J. G. Seddon for reorganising defence stores, he had hoard nothing of the matter till the newspapers reported what had been said in Parliament. He did not recollect any such voucher. Was certain there was nob. Did not know Captain Seddon personally; not even by sight. Was quite satisfied Captain Seddon was never in his office. Could not account for the allegation by. Messrs Larcombe, Willis, and West that there was such a voucher in his office.

The witness also testified to th« three officials’ good conductKENNETH RODGER. Kenneth McKay Rodger, clerk in th® Chief Post Office, Christchurch, testified that occasionally since April, 1903, he had dealt with Treasury vouchers. Mr Mcßeth asked no questions about the payees while countersigning. The number, amount, and date of returning to the Treasury were entered in the book. It was possible that one voucher might stick to another, and so escape being entered in the book; still he would ex- - , peot to find an entry of any such paid voucher as might be inquired about. He had never seen a voucher in the Christchurch Post Office for, or receipted by, R. J. S. Seddon, and the first he heard it said there was such a voucher was the report in the papers about the speeches in Parliament. As Mr Mcßeth’s memory was not very good, he could not, in witness’s opinion, recollect all who came to his office to get Treasury cheques countersigned. JOSEPH WILLIS RE-EXAMINED. Joseph Willis (re-examined on August 23rd) was asked by the Auditor-General if, having seen what the Chief Postmaster's record said were all the vouchers for payments on Treasury cheques countersigned by him, and which must have included the voucher for R. J. S. Seddon if it had been paid at Christchurch on a cheque so countersigned and entered in that book, if, having seen every voucher entered in that book from April Ist, 1903, to June 30th, 1905. for amounts between £7O and £IOO, and ©very voucher so entered for amounts fiom £4O to £7O for the period from December, 1903. to September 2nd, 1904—if, having seen these, whether any entry was of a voucher for, R. J. S. Seddon, Mr Willis replied that he had seen the vouchers, and certainly none of them was the voucher he sawi for R. J. S. Seddon. However, he had found some discrepancies in the entries, which he instanced, one being ; a entry for £7O 4s, whereas the voucher was for £7 jQs 4d. There were also several mistakes in the entries of the numbers of vouchers. This made him doubt the accuracy of the books as a record of vouchers for payments made at Christchurch. Any of the vouchers could (, easily have been taken away, as the public were continually about the table where the vouchers were lying loose. The Auditor-General: But if a voucher were missing, if the Chief Postmaster’s record omitted a voucher, that voucher would still be in the Audit Office books, and the Audit Office finds that the Chief Postmaster’s record contains an entry of every voucher entered in the Audit Office books, so far as that record and those books have been compared. There are only two mistakes in the record —• on© of Id entered as 9d, and the other, of £7 0s 4d entered as £7O 4s. Willis, in reply, said he knew nothing of the Audit Office books. He continued, “ I can only say that I still swear that I saw a voucher for R. J. / S’. Seddon exceeding £7O for the reorganisation of defence stores at _ Wellington. I held such a voucher in my hands for several minutes, commented upon it . with Messrs Larcombe and West, and I am certain that, so far as I am concerned, I could not possibly have made a mistake. For this reason I would ask that the vouchers entered in the Chief Postmaster’s record from December Ist, 1903, to August 31st, 1904, may be checked by the Audit Office- books, as I understand the vouchers from £7O to £IOO have been checked.”

Witness acknowledged that the Auditor-General and Mr Lines hadi done everything in their power to assist him. On the following day (August 24th), the Auditor-General, in further examining Willis, said the Chief Postmaster’s record of vouchers had been checked with the Audit Office books, as witness desired the previous day, with respect to vouchers between £4O and: £7O, and it was found that no voucher had been omitted from the record which could be the voucher described. Witness said he was still dissatisfied. He believed there was a way by which such a payment could be made without the Audit Office being cognisant of the fact. He thought there was a grave defect in the boobs. Ho continued: “ Then the whole case rests on the original voucher, and I am convinced that there has been some trickery with the voucher that I saw. He wished tosee every voucher for payments above £4O and below £IOO made at Christchurch Post Office. On the following day (August 2oth), Willis, after being reminded by the Auditor-General that he (Willis) had now seen the. voucher for every payment made at Christchurch which could have been, if genuine, the voucher in question, said: “But you are not anticipating fraud, and you believe that the system has not been tampered with or failed in any way, whereas four of us actually handled and commented on a voucher which your books show has no existence. Any deception or manipulation of the voucher could not have been -detected by us. Either there is a question as to the genuineness of the vouchers or some defect in the system of recording payments.” Witness then asked permission to scrutinise the Treasury books, but the Auditor-General replied that this would only go to show that, the Treasury books were right or wrong*

according as they agreed or differed with the Audit Office books and the Touchers exhibited. Replying to this, witness reiterated that the whole thing apparently rested on the original voucher, and that voucher could easily have been tampered with. Witness then went on to describe an interview with Mr Fisher after the exploitation of the Sneddon voucher, when Mr Fisher said: ‘*l have decided to make the amende honourable. I am telegraphing to the Premier and his son a full and ample apology.” Witness then told Fisher than there was still a Seddon voucher, and Fisher said, “Are you sure?” Witness detailed his reasons for believing that there was such a voucher, and suggested that " Fisher should see Larcombe and West, who would corroborate . his v statement. Fisher called upon Larcombe and West, who confirmed what witness had said.. CAPTAIN SEDDON. Captain Seddon examined, stated that he had never in Christchurch any payment for services to the New Zealand or Imperial Government. He had never receipted in Christchurch a voucher for money payable out of the public account, and had never been engaged in the inspection or reorganisation of defence stores in Wellington or elsewhere, or received payment ior such work. He returned from South Africa in 1903 and deposited moneys received by him at his account in the Bank of New Zealand. He had received no moneys from the New Zealand or Imperial Governments to which he was not legally entitled. He had no. account at Christchurch, and always signed cheques and vouchers R. J. Seddon. NO ACCOUNT IN CHRISTCHURCH. A “confidential” letter to, Captain Seddon from Mr Litchfield, manager of the Bank of New • Zealand, Christchurch, under date August 18th, 1905, in answer to his inquiries addressed to the manager at Wellington, stated that Captain Seddon had no account with the bank in Christchurch; that he had never deposited at any tim'e any money with the Christchurch branch to be credited to his account at Wellington ; that in June, 1904, he did not deposit any money in Christ church branch t o anyone’s account.' . DEFENCE STOREKEEPER. James O’Sullivan, defence- storekeeper for the whole colony, stated that his duty was to control the receipt and issue of military stores throughout the colony, and had been since October, 1898. Thej’e had been no reorganisation of the defence stores since March 31st, 1903, taking reorganisation to mean “a change in the system and the appointments of officers,” and no inspecr tion or reorganisation of stores unknown to him. He knew of no claim on the part of Captain Seddon, and he did not perform such a service. UNDER-SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE. T. F. Grey stated that he had been Under-Secretary for Defence from October Ist, 1902, to September '3rd, 1904, and from July Ist, 1905, to date. He was absent from the office from December 24th, 1904, to January 30th, 1905. Therefore no claims' came before him during that period. Between October Ist, 1904, and January 30th, 1905, when not Acting Under-Secretary, all claims would come before him, as he was countersigning-officer during that time. Any claim for reorganisation or inspection of defence stores during that time he would have been fully aware of. There had neither been reorganisation nor any inspection such as to have justified a claim in either case, so far as he knew. He would have seen any claim if any had been made by Captain Seddon, except during his absence as above, and then would have been informed of it. Captain Seddon was not employed in or about such service as the reorganisation of defence stores. The following was the course followed •by him in the matter of the certificate given :—The Hon the Defence Minister on August 3rd, 1905, was informed that a careful search of all Defence and Treasury books had been made, and no trace of claim or payment to Captain Seddon of any sum whatever for the organisation of reorganisation of defence stores could be found. He personally searched all the Defence books of account; also the register of records, and could find no trace of any such claim having been received or approved for payment. In a case like this, of the alleged payment of a -voucher, if such had been authorised, it would have heen approved by Cabinet, or at least by the Defence Minister. But taking precedents into consideration, Cabinet alone would approve of such payment, and there was no such payment recorded. However,- his memory was clear that except during absence as above, no such approval was recorded, and if it had been during that period, he would have been made aware of it on his return. The search of the Treasury books was made by the Defence Office accountant. ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT. R. N. Williams, assistant-accountant * in the Defence Department, stated, he had seen and dealt with all the claims reoeived or passed by the Defence Department, exeept during an absence of twelve da vs, and for that period he saw

all the returns. He was positive that no claim for reorganisation or inspection of defence stores was reoeived or authorised. He corroborated Mr Grey’s statement of the search of Treasury books by himself, as accountant, and the result, viz., finding no trace of receipt of claim or payment to Captain Seddon. The method he followed was to examine the Treasury books from April Ist, 1903, to date, for all charges that could have been approved by the Defence Department. He went over every item for every such charge, and found no trace whatever. The Treasury books he found to agree with the books of the Defence Department. He looked particularly for a payment to Captain Seddon for such a service as the one in question. ASSISTANT-SECRETARY TO ' TREASURY. R. J. Collins, Assistant-Secretary to the Treasury, stated that he had forty years’ service, twenty-seven of which were in the Treasury, of which he served fifteen years as Accountant to the Treasury. He explained the method of charging in the books of the Treasury payments authorised to particular persons, thus :—First, Treasury numbered the vouchers received, in consecutive order for the current year, no two, therefore, bearing the same number. Then they were entered in the Treasury abstract book under the vote and item, the number of voucher, claimant’s name, particulars and date of service, and amount all being entered. ~ Thirdly, the voucher was entered with the other vouchers in requisition or schedule, with number, amount, and vote or other authority. for payment of each. Fourthly, the requisition, with all vouchers supporting the same, was forwarded to the Audit Office, which, on being satisfied that the vouchers were correctly entered, returned them, and issued the necessary bank-order for their payment, sending the same to the Treasury. Fifthly, the requisition was filed in the Audit Office as the record of the payment Sixthly, on the return of the vouchers to the Treasury, cheques were prepared for the different claimants, and entered under the name of the bank branch on which they were drawn; copies were sent to each such branch as the authority to pay on the counter-signature of the officer named, and a register kept in the Treasury of each cheque’s address, with record of its number; the number of the incidental voucher, and the name and address of the claimant. Seventhly, each cheque was posted to the claimant or his agent, except in the case of salary payments, when cheques w'ent to the officer in charge of the office, and of payments to natives, when the cheque went to the countersigning officer. Eightly, the incidental vouchers were sent for acquittance to the countersigning officer, who countersigned the cheque after obtaining the acquittance, and returned the voucher to the Treasury. Ninthly, the voucher, on receipt by the Treasury, was filed in numerical sequence. Before vouchers were passed for payment by the Audit Office, and put into requisition by the Treasury, the course of dealing with the same was as follows:—’Every claim "was entered on a Treasury voucher form, forwarded to the department concerned, stamped by that department with date of receipt, and entered in the alphabetical register, according to the Treasury regulations, with date of receipt by the department, name of claimant, service, and amount of claim, date of despatch to Audit, and date of return, if any, and consequent date of resending to the Audit; and if cancelled, with note of cancelment in the register. The claim, if found correct, was charged by the department to the proper vote and item, then signed by the Under-Secretary or other authorised officer, and forwarded to the Audit For examination. The Audit was to satisfy itself that the voucher was in due form and correct, that the payment was authorised Ministerially or otherwise, when there w r as any otherwise, and that it was charged on the voucher against the right vote. Continuing, Mr Collins said that at least four records are kept, in which every claim is entered—(l) In the incidental department authorising it; (2) one in the Audit Office; (3) and two in the Treasury. In case, therefore, of the loss of a voucher, that voucher would appear in the records of the issue of the money out of the public account, and such record would stand even in the event of the recall of the payment. In the matter of the payment of moneys out of imprest, the voucher, or receipt, taken by the imprestee was forwarded to the Treasury in support of the imprest account. Noted there, it went to the incidental department for approval and authorisation, and after that it fell into the usual track of , vouchers, as above described. In the Treasury, to ensure accuracy, it was the rule to call over the entries of the vouchers after they were made. Oo>mmg to the particular case in question, Mr Collins swore he had examined the entries in the Treasury books to see whether any of them was for a payment for the reorganisation or inspection of defence stores, and had found no such entry. Had found and taken a note of entries of payments to Captain. Seddon or R. J. Seddon. or

R J. S. Seddon, and had found that the only payments made to him during the period commencing March 31st, 1903, were in respect of salary, travelling allowances, travelling expenses, sessional allowance, and a couple of small amounts due to him for service in South Africa. At the request of the Auditor-Gene-ral, Mr Collins produced these vouchers, and explained, at the request of the same authority, how lie had proved these vouchers, viz., by the registers already described, and by having the entries verified by another officer of the Treasury. All of these amounts were paid in Wellington, and lie was satisfied that (1) it would follow that no payments out of the public account were made to him in Christchurch, and (2) that no such payment was made to him in Christchurch for any service. Mr Collins further deposed that with regard to his memorandum of August 3rd to the Premier, he had taken steps to confirm his report that no record of any such payment as alleged was to be found; by personally examining the entries in the Treasury abstract books, had a list made out from the bank ledgers of all Treasury cheques issued and paid at Christchurch of sums between £SO and £9O during the two years ended March 31st, 1905, and found none of these cheques were issued to Captain Seddon. He also referred to the alphabetical ledger of the Defence Office; made out therefrom a list of all claims authorised by that department for payment to Captain Seddon, compared it with the list compiled from the Treasury books, and found them to agree. Pie was satisfied that no voucher as alleged could have escaped his search, as, if such had been issued, it would have been impossible for it to escape discovery, as the entries would be sufficient to identify and disclose payment. Further, he said that no payment could he made out- of the public account before it was entered in a requisition sent to and approved by the Audit Office, as na moneys could be withdrawn from the public account except by means of the bank order, which the Audit Office signed according to the Public Revenues Act. Asked how many hands of Treasury officers a claim for payment out of the public account passed on its way through the Treasury, Mr Collins said: “ Nine.” In addition, there would be the clerks of the authorising department, and of the Audit Department passing, making up the list of scrutiny to at Least a dozen officers. Asked as to the effect of the mechanical habit induced by the above routine, Mr Collins said that a voucher of the exceptional character of the one alleged could not escape observation or remark, and comment, and must he remembered by the officers through whose hands it passed. As to the point of payment having been made by the Post Office, Mr Collins said, it payment was made by the Chief Postmaster out of Post Office moneys, it would be found charged in the Treasury books. The Post Office otherwise "would not- receive credit for the moneys so expended. B. M. LITCHFIELD. Mr Litchfield, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Christchurch, deposed that between March 31st, 1903, and June 30th, 1905, there was no Treasury cheque oountersignable by the bank for a payment by voucher to Captain ot R. J. S - Seddon, and no payment made under such. Moreover, Captain Seddon kept no account with the bank at Christchurch, and deposited no money there, though he may have cashed a cheque or cheques at the counter unknown to the manager. In this connection, he had questioned the tellers, and found they had no recollection of any payment to Captain Seddon. Witness added that Captain Seddon had a private credit under which, he could have drawn money between December 7th, 1904, and January 7th. 1905, but which he did. not draw upon at the bank in Christchurch. As to the question whether there was a payment made by Treasury cheque countersigned by the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch since March 31st, 1903, on a voucher receipted by “R. J. S. Seddon” for the reorganisation of defence stores, Mr Litchfield had no suggestion whatever to offer. Mr J. B. Heywood, Secretary to the Treasury, Paymaster-General, and Re-ceiver-General, and Imperial Paymaster, stated that he had not authorised the payment of any claim against the Imperial war expenditure account for the reorganisation of defence stores. No such claim had ever come before him, nor had any such claim been received in the Imperial Pay Office. No such payment had been made out of an Imprest advance. Search was carefully made by the Treasury officers of all payments made to Captain Seddon, and charged to the vote or votes for defence services, and to the Imperial war expenditure account, and no trace of a payment for the reorganisation or organisation had been found. GENERAL BABINGTON. Major-General Babington, commanding the defence forces of New Zealand, stated that Captain Seddon had not, during the period of his service since March 31st, 1903, performed any service for the organisation or reorganisa-

tion of defence stores. He knew nothing of any claim made by him for the performance of such service. D. C. INNES. A memorandum from D. C. Lines, Audit Office, showed twelve distinct searches made for traces of such a payment to Captain Seddon. Mr Willi* and Mr Lines made from the Post Office book a list of all amounts from £7O to £IOO, with the accompanying voucher numbers. The method adopted was this: Mr Willis took the books and called the voucher numbers and amounts to him, which he took down. They then reversed. Mr Innes called to Mr Willis from the books and Mr Willis checked his list, and, together with Mr Innes, initialled each sheet. Mr Willis expressed himself satisfied that it was a correct abstract. A similar practice was followed in regard to the search of hooks in other departments bearing on the inquiry. In conclusion, Mr Innes said: “I can positively say that no payment has been made to Captain. Seddon for reorganisation of defence stores, or for any other service, of an amount of between £4O and £IOO either at Christchurch or anywhere else within the dates of the various examinations.”