THE AUDIT COMMISSION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5733, 31 October 1905, Page 2

THE AUDIT COMMISSION.

MR JOSEPH WILLIS’S EVIDENCE. THE HISTORY OF THE VOUCHER. • Their Honors Justices Dcnniston, Fdivarcls, and Cooper, who constitute the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Iho methods and efficiency of the public .service audit, met again yesterday morning. Mr Slccrrott, who appeared for the Government departments, had concluded his case, and their Honors consequently called upon Mr F. M. B. Fisher, to bring forward his witnesses.

Mr Fisher called Joseph Willis, who is one of tiie parties to the inquiry. The witness stated, in reply to Mr Fisher, that he was a clerk in the General Post Office at Christchurch. Ho had been sixteen years in the service, and had no grievance whatever against the department. 'Witness had made an affidavit in Christchurch on August 4th before Mr Salter, a solicitor, of that city. In that affidavit he stated that some time in 1904 be saw a voucher for an amount exceeding £7O in favour of Captain 11. J. S. Seddon, which was charged against the Defence Department. It was shown to him by Mr Larcombc. Witness made that affidavit quite voluntarily, and was not threatened with exposure or the loss of his billet if ho did not make it. Before giving information in regard to the matter ho had made inquiries from two solicitors, as to whether in making known these matters lie was breaking his official obligation, and was informed that ho was not. His first recollection of the vouchor_ was that one day in 1904 Mr Larcomhe came out of the Chief Postmaster’s room into the chief dork’s room, where witness was—the distance was some forty yards. He threw a voucher on witness’s writingpad, and asked what ho thought of it. Witness examined the voucher, and found it was made out in favour of Captain 11. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation of defence stores at Wellington. The amount was over £7O, and it was duly receipted by It. J. S. Seddon, and boro the usual revenue stamp. Witness took the voucher in his hand up to the window, and pointed out to Larcoinho the peculiar fact that the services for which the voucher was dravu were performed in Wellington, whereas the payment was to be made in Christchurch. Then Larcqmbc took the voucher back into tbo Chief .Postmaster .s room. West came in, and Lareonibe. said to him, ‘’Tom, go and have a look at tbo voucher that young Seddon has signed ‘in tile Chief Postmaster’s room,” and bo did so. On returning, lie said, “What in the world dues lie know about defence stores?” Since that time witness, Larcombc, and West bad discussed the voucher, and bad made a joke or “gag” of it. If one of them went into the mail-room, it would bo said ho was goinc in “to reorganise tbo defence stores.” On Saturday ho bad examined soino 170 vouchors,_ but did not find tbo one ho was looking for. Hie voucher shown to him by Larcoinbe was a ■genuine voucher, and boro upon its faco quite a number of stamps. Mr Fisher: It has been suggested that you have hcen stricken with an hallucination?—l do not thmk that is possible. It would be the first hallucination X have ever suffered from in ray life. Even if I had imagined it 1 ■ could not have communicated it to Mrs Larcombo, nor spoken to Mr Lundon in reference to it. - r You asked Mr Warburton to call MrLarcombc, and be did not do so, as,ho was satisfied with the evidence?—les. Didn’t you consider as a tnxpayci that you wore justifed in expressing an opinion upon such matters P-1 certainly did: I didn’t consider when I cnteiZl tbo Civil Service that I forfeited my rights as a citizen. Well i s it possible that this vouchor might have been take.n away irora the Chief Postmaster’s room?—xes; I have known vouchors to be taken away toi signature, but I have never know’ll a receipted voucher to disappear, witness wont on to say that h© had never seen Cautain Seddon m the Chicr 1 master’s room; but be had seen bun in tbo chief clerk’s room. Ho did not wish to associate Captain's Seddou’s visit tc the Post Office with this particular vouchor. Later on, after the debate in Parliament, witness saw Mr Fisher at Christchurch, and that gentleman said ho w'as about, to send telegrams to the Bight Hon R. J. Seddon and to Captain Seddon apologising for his accusations and withdrawing them, and wit ness said he was certain it was a “ Seddon ” not a “ Sneddon ” vouchor, but ho thought it was a'strange coincidence that the number of the voucher was tbo same that had been given to Mr Fisher. He asked Mr Fisher not to send the telegrams in’Which be had proposed to make tbo amende honorable. Witness had no political feeling in this matter whatever. Ho v»'as only prompted to give Mr Fisher information with regard to it in the interests of the colony; and subsequently, when tbo matter had been discussed in Parliament and elsewhere, be desired to establish his veracity. He was not satisfied , with tii© Auditor-General's inquiry, nor with the search that was made for the vouchor, for bo believed that if a proper search were made that voucher would bo found. Cross-examined by Dr Findlay, the witness said be could not say whether tbo voucher be saw was charged against the defence vote or Defence Department. Assuming that the voucher was genuine, and there was no fraud in,connection with it, wouldn’t it have been recorded in the records ?—Well, yes; but apparently some gentleman knowe how to got round tbs department. You say you saw a receipted voucher ? Mr Justice Edwards; Well, then, if there was a “ receipted ” voucher there must have been a cheque. Will you tel! us of any process by which money can bo taken ont of the bank by a Government cheque—or any other cheque —without there being a record of the transaction? Mr Justice Donniston: And in any case its absence would bo noticed in the daily balance?—Yes; but we can’t say—because the cheques have not been examined —whether there was a payment made or not. Dr Findlay; And if the cheques aro

examined what will you say?—Only that I saw a genuine voucher, as I have said. Cm you suggest any explanation?— That’s a conundrum which I’ll leave to you. Mr Justice Edwards: But is it 'possible? Can you get money out of a bank without a record being left with ’the bank, cron supposing the officers concurred in neglecting their duty—l ask how is it passible for the money to come out of a bank without any record being left ?—So far as fro know there is no record that the money did come out of the bank; there is no record that will show whether that money has been paid or not, so far as the records that have been produced in Court are concerned. Mr Justice Donniston: As between a paying bank and the Government office there would have to he an absolute indication of the payment; if you arc satisfied that no cheque exists, no money could have been drawn out of the bank ? —I would point out that the bank docs not say, and has not said, that such a cheque has been drawn. Well, if you were satisfied after an examination of the bank records that no such cheque existed, what would you sav?—Well, what could I say.

Dr Findlay: Tint in that case wouldn’t yon bo prepared to admit that you bad mndo a mistake?—No, not so far us tbo voucher is concerned. Tbo voucher I saw was a. genuine vouchor. I say a!! of this matter could have been cleared up at tho time of the inquiry if we hud been allowed to make an examination of all the cheques and vouchers. All I can now say is that I saw tho voucher.

Mr Justice Edwards: You are not merely a witness called to say that you saw this voucher. At your own request you were made a party to the inquiry, and wo ask you if you have any theory to account for the fact that a mistake can bo made in this matter, not by one, but by so many persons. Dr Findlay: If Captain Seddon says lie did not receive this money, will yon say that lie is telling an untruth?—All I can say is that I saw the voucher, and the Auditor-General’s inquiry did not satisfy mo.

Aro you satisfied now that Captain Seddon was telling tho truth?—l don’t know what to say; what do you want mo t o say ? Mr Fisher: Your Honors will see that tho witness is in a peculiar position, because his case is now under tho consideration of tho Premier as to whether ho should remain in tho service or not. Mr Justice Donniston said tho Bench was inclined to tho opinion that the witness need not answer tho question, but not on account of the reason which Mr Fisher had referred to.

The witness, in answer to further questions, said he did not know Captain Seddon personally, nor did lie know his signature ; nor did lie know his capacity as a military officers, except from tho discussions ho had heard in Christchurch amongst volunteer officers. Ho had known Mr Fisher for about six years, and was intimate with him, and had conversations with him almost every day. In 1904 witness was spoken to by the chief clerk, who said that some of tile men thought Mr Fisher came to the office too frequently. Witness absolutely denied that ho gave Mr Fisher information which enabled Mr Taylor to cross-examine Captain Seddon in the Taylor-Seddou trial. When tho affidavits of witness, Lareonibe and West camo to he drawn up with regard to tho vouchers, their recollections were not exactly the same with, regard to whether tho voucher which they had seen was signed “R. J. S. Seddon” or “R. J. Seddon,” and whether tho vouchor was for service rendered in Wellington or elsewhere.

In reply to Mr Skorrett, the witness said tho voucher he saw must have been a payment out of tho Government accounts for £7O. He had been assured by an expert accountant that the only way in which this matter could he elucidated was to compare all tho records—tho cheques and vouchers —to see if there were any discrepancies. The evidence on the other side appeared to ho that the voucher did not exist; hut he maintained that it had. existed, and that the greatest check should he applied. Mr Justice Denniston; Could any voucher for £4O, or any sum smaller than £7O, he tho one you saw?—No, not unices there was some trickery. What- is the name of the export accountant who gave you, this advice?— Mr T. G. Russell, solicitor, of Christchurch, who stated that the only im liner iu which we could check tho payment was by comparing all the records, documents, and cheques. Is Mr T. G. Russell acquainted with the elaborate machinery for checking the public accounts which v, e have recently seen ?—I. cannot say. Mr Fisher explained that he had obtained this information r ' am .’dr Russel 1 in order to clear the matter up.

Mr Skorrett suggested -h-:c the witness, as a reasonable man, would probably be satisfied if all the cheques and ■vouchers were produced, and ire was enabled to see whether they corresponded with the names and claims in the Treasury and Defence books, and no such voucher as that alleged was found, it would surely bo demonstrated that no such payment ■as was alleged had ever been made out of the public account. The witness said ho would be satisfied that no such money came out of the Dank of New Zealand in Christchurch. In re-oxamination by Mr Fisher, the witness said ho had seen the whole system of Treasury and 'Defence aooir, and ho did not think it was one that could he easily evaded. Ho did not come there to suggest any system of evasion, but to say that he had seen a voucher such as he had described. To him tiro whole matter was the greatest conundrum that ho had ever mot with. It was like a person witnessing a murder and then being unable to find the body of tbo victim. Mr Justice Ddwards: Well, so far as the evidence has gone, it appears to bo impossible for a genuine voucher to be squeezed tlirough these books. It is just as if you had a heap containing, say one hundred sovereigns. There could not bo seventy of them taken away without it being immediately discovered. Mr Fisher: But, Mr Willis, if you went to the Registrar, and ho could not produce the register of your birth, it would not prove that you had not been born ? The witness, in answer to other questions, said the weight of evidence- was against him in some respects, and in face of Captain Seddon’s declaration that he had not signed the vouchor, lie would accept it as correct. He had no desire to injure Captain Seddon, and, indeed, only knew him by sight; but he still maintained that ho saw a voucher such as he described, and which had been signed by someone. The Commission adjourned until 10.80 a.m. to-day.