FOUR AFFIDAVITS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5668, 16 August 1905, Page 4

FOUR AFFIDAVITS.

Tile ••voucher" incident has entered upon a new phase by the production of the affidavits sworn by three employees of the Post Office Department at Christchurch, to the- effect that at some time j during 1904 they saw a voucher made , out in favour of Captain .St -i lon "for an amount exceeding .€70," jor the reor- \ ganisatiou of defence .stores. Two ol ' the deponents further Male that the money was payable in Christchurch, and that it was charged against the Defence vote, but the third is silent on these points. There is, however, a remarkable agreement, even in the matter of iiulcfiniteiicss as to the amount, and the date of the payment, between the throe affidavits; and on the lace of it, it seems incredible that throe men of ordinary powers of observation could have been mutually mistaken as to the existence of such a. document. Two of the three clerks who make these statements allege that they exchanged comments regarding the fact, of the voucher being made payable at Christchurch, so it seems to be clear that if such a document existed, it was payable in the City of the Plains. Now, against the sworn affidavit of the subordinates, we have the certificate of the Chief Postrnastcr at Christchurch that no such voucher passed through his hands ns paymaster, besides the certificates of the Defence and Treasury officials to the effect that no such payment was made to Captain Scddon or anyone else. And now we have a solemn declaration sworn by Captain Seddon, which is emphatic and comprehensive enough to cover the whole ground of allegation. He declares (hat ho never received “any payment whatever in Christchurch,” that he never performed any services in connection with reorganising defence stores, and that ho never received any payment or signed any voucher for £7O or £BO, or any other sum, for reorganising defence stores. If this throws the weight, of evidence in llio scale against the accusers, it also doopons the mystery which tlio Auditor-General has to solve. Although, under the standing orders, the affidavit of Captain Scddon could not bo attached to his petition, praying that it bo forwarded to the Auditor-General, we presume fliat Captain Seddon will have an opportunity of giving evidence at the inquiry and placing on record his denial of the allegations of Mr Fisher and his three friends of the Civil Service. In accordance With our determination to treat the matter as “sub judicc,” wc refrain from offering any comment upon the extraordinary situation, beyond expressing a bop© that the inquiry will be thorough and searching, and that the report to bo presented to Parliament will throw light on what is now dark and mysterious and contradictory to the point of utter irreconcilability.