THE AUDIT COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5735, 2 November 1905, Page 3

THE AUDIT COMMISSION

MR FISHER STATES HIS POSITION. DOES NOT BELIEVE CAPTAIN SEDDON GOT THE MONEY. ’AN INEXPLICABLE MYSTERY.’’ CAPTAIN SEDDON’S DENIAL. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working and methods •of fctio Audit Department resumed its sittings yesterday. There were present their Honors Mr Justice Denniston, Mr Justice Edwards, and Mr Justice Cooper. -Mr Skcrrefct appeared for the Government Departments concerned. Dr Findlay for Captain Seddon, and Messrs Fisher, A 1.11.11., and Willis, who are parties to the inquiry, appeared in person. Dr Findlay, addressing the Commission, said he would ask Mr Fisher to submit himself to cross-examination in the witness-box, as Captain Seddon proposed to do. The reason the question was asked was that Mr Fisher had offered himself as a witness. Mr Fisher stated ho had no objection to giving evidence, and he immediately entered tho box and took the oath. In answer to questions, ho said lie had boon elected as a member of tho House of Representatives on April Gth, 1905, and the House met first after that date on July 28th, and later on lie made certain statements in the llon.se with respect to tho alleged "Seddon voucher,” when lie stated that Captain Seddon went to Christchurch in the previous year and iiad a payment made to him of £76 Is 9d, charged against the Defence Department, and for tho reorganisation of defence stores, and that the number of the voucher was 1589!), and tho date ■Juno 9th.

Dr Findlay; lint you subsequently altered that number?—Yes, to 15810. And you said you were quite sure of your particulars, and invited tbc Prime Minister to take down those particulars. How did you get that date—the Oth of Juno?—l made inquiries first ns to what date Captain Seddon was in Christchurch, and as far as I could make out it was on or about the Oth of June. I then wrote to Willis, and asked if bo could tell mo when the payment was made. Willis consulted the Post Office register, and from the Ist to tho Oth of June there was only one payment over £7O, and that was numbered 15819. He gave mo particulars of that, and I came to the conclusion that that must bo the payment. And that the only payment of over £7O was made on the 9th of June?—■ Yes, tho 9th of June was fixed in rep lo my communication with Mr Willis.

Yes; but the curious thing is that Mr Willis gives the date as tho 14th?— Well, the only answer I can give is that 1 gave the original number of the Voucher from memory, and, presumably, I gave the date from memory also.

You said Captain Seddon was in Christchurch between the Ist and Oth of June, and yon fixed tho date in consequence?—Yes, I suppose that is to.

lion stated In the House of Representatives that you were sure of your particulars, and that Captain Seddon Was in Christchurch between the Ist and tho £'th of June?—Yes, that is to.

■And you took the £)th ns the date. -And wasn't it more or less of a guess that you stated to the House?—Yes; I fixed the date because, so far as I could find out, that was the only period during which ho was in Christchurch ■ and .1 say it was between the Ist and tho 9th. That is the best of my recollection. But you said in tho House that you Were sure of your particulars, and invited the Premier to take thorn down. You fixed tho date and the number of the voucher, hut made a correction afterwards ?—Yes. Curiously enough there was a coincidence between the date you fixed upon and that of the date of tho “Sneddon vouchor”?—ls that so? > You, it is?-—Well, I didn’t know that. It is a curious coincidence?—Yes, tho Whole thing is a scries of curious coincidences. Is tho statement which appears in the report of Hie evidence given that mu hoard a rumour fixing the amount at £76 4s 9d correct or not?—Ho, it is not vorrect.'

Well, what did you fix the amount at?—To the best of my recollection, I told tho Commission that tho sum of £76 was what I heard mentioned. I am almost certain I did not mention ;C7G 4a 9d. I heard the rumour as to tho £76, but not with regard to tho 4s 9d. There was a rumour current in Christchurch, which I as a volunteer officer heard, that Captain Soddon received £76 in addition to his salary. From whom did the rumour emanate ? —Well, it was suggested, I believe, by Hr Stringer that it emanated from Mr Willis. It was merely one of the many details that wont round amongst the volunteer officers. I left tho volunteer force in 1903, and I know it was subsequent to that time. . . Do you mean to say the origin at the rumour was Mr Willis? —Ho, I cannot say whether it was Mr Willis or Dr Findlay. . . ~ How, Hr Fisher, are you really serious?—l say it was impossible for me to gay from Tvh,om it omanateu. Will you swear that it did not emanate from Mr Willis ?—Yes. To the best of ray belief. I have no idea from whom it came. It came to mo as a rumour, and the fact was dormant in my mind until 1 became a member of the House of Representatives. And you were told all this before you became a member of the House. Yes. , And you didn’t know from whom you heard it, and you can’t swear it wasu t Mr WiTlis?—Ho; the matter was nev-r revived in my mind until I as 111 * position to deal with. it. But Willis says he wrote you an earlier letter, and gave you all the paiticulars he could from memory ?—I bate no doubt he did. Mr Willis and I have had frequent communications. H n says I got a letter from Mm, i b;> lievo him; but I can’t say what was in that letter. I do not remember any ot its contents. , In answer to further questions, the witness said that before July _ -Bth he had not received any information witn regard to the Seddon or Sneddon vouchers from Mr Willis, and the amount of tho payment of £76 was fixed by the rumours that were current. I no rumour simply was that Captain Seddon had received an amount of £76 over and above his salary, and that it was an improper payment. Dr Findlay: What put you on the track of this inquiry?—lt was this, that when a public officer is down upon the Estimates for a certain salary’, and you know ' he is receiving more than that salary, I say we have a right to know what he is receiving, and what for. Yes; but you did not know until Mr I

Willis informed you that it was For re- , organising defence stores? —No; hut in tho mean time I hail got into a position in which I was justified in making in-

quines. Well yon were satisfied that it was £76, ami tJio Sneddon voucher slates that it was £76 4s fid?—Acs.

And you won’t swear Unit your informant was not Mr AViiiis?—l can’t say; hut I'must toil you that thin matter has' been a groat" puzzle to mo, as it has Imen to anyone else, and I would like to assist you in its elucidation as much a's it is possible for me to do. You know that Mr Willis lias said that ho Ins had conversations with you almost every day for the last five years? —Yes, but I don’t think ho was tied down to that exactly. J saw him frequently, and called at his office. Wo were together in the same corps. And there was an objection made by tho chief clerk to your going to his office?—Yes, The objection was not made to me ; but I knew of it from Willis, ami then I didn’t call so frequently.

Then, for the last three years practically you have seen Willis almost daily. You have had private matters between yon, and you wore frequently at his office; and after you heard tho rumour iliat C7H had been paid to Captain Seddon you saw Mr AYillis?—Oh, ye-.

Did tho rumours state where tho pavinen t was made to Captain Seddon ? No; I had no idea of it at all; and down there in Christchurch wc frequently heard ot things that took place in Wellington.

J>ld yon ever an conversation with Willis refer to that rnmonr?—-I have some vague recollection that it was mentioned.

Continuing, witness said he referred to tho matter in Parliament, in reply to an interjection made by someone, although it did not appear so in “Hansard,” There were many interjections made on tho floor of the House which wero inaudible in tho galleries, and this ho believed was one of them, made whilst, lie was replying to the Premier. He liad been given tho opportunity of revising tho “Hansard” proofs, but ho had not corrected this matter. Air Willis had a very good memory. Dr Findlay: A'on regarded this payment to Captain Seddon as an improper one?—Yes, I did. Did yon refer to the payment as an improper ono when speaking to Air Willis?—l mentioned the payment. What did you say to Air Willis?— That I cannot tell yon. I should he glad if I could, for there is nothing 1 wisli to keep hack. Didn’t yon say in Parliament that you wore wrong with regard to tho number of the vouchor, but that yon had then got tho right number?—Yes, X did. Witness went on to say that when speaking on tho 9th of August ho iiad given a number, and after ho wont down South again, Air Willis made out a copy of tiio numbers of vouchers in tho Post Office register, and witness was quite confident that tho production of all the vouchers meant tho production of the Seddon voucher.

Mr Justice Denniston: You mean that you could get it by an exhaustive search?—Yes, that is so. Dr Findlay: That is to say if I wore to give you from ono to 50,000 vouchers you could got the number?—Well, that is your way of putting it, and generally speaking would .be wrong. In this case wo had the number of every voucher that went through the Christchurch Post Office. AVo had copies made of every one of the voucher numbers. Air Justice Denniston: Air Willis had taken out all the numbers? —I don't know that ho had taken out all of them, but ho had taken out those which ho considered necessary, Dr Findlay; Before the 28th July hadn’t you been getting information from Government officials regarding other vouchers?—Yes, from Air Willis. ’ What about?.—About the “cab vouchers” charged against the Education vote and the "wreath vouchers.”

Y T ou recollect the statement being made in the House that pertain gentlemen attended the funeral of a late Cabinet Minister, and you said the accounts lor cabs and wreaths wore sent in to the Government for payment, and you challenged tho Government to deny it. and set up a Parliamentary inquiry into tho matter; did you get that information from Willis ?—Yes, I did. And was not the voucher in regard to these wreaths produced, and didn’t it turn out to bo a mare's-nest?—Ho, I don’t think it did. A'on see it’s quite possible that the Minister or head of a department may produce a voucher, and say, “That is the document to which you refer,” hut it might bo an entirely different voucher to the ono you had iu your mind’s eye. My information was that tho names of tho Ministers were on the back of this voucher; but they wore not on the back of the voucher that was produced. Y'ou sec, there might bo two payments of accounts —a proper and an improper one; and when you challenge tho improper payment tho proper ono might bo produced. Mr Justice Edwards: Then no proof would satisfy you unless a voucher is produced which corresponds with tho vouchor which you say you had information about?—Ho, I do not say that. Well, what information did Mr Willis give you about this voucher? —Only the information I stated in the House. He told me the names of the Ministers were on the back of it, and that ono voucher was for wreaths, and it was a private voucher charged to the Education vote. In whoso favour?—l can’t say that. He only said the names were on “he back of the cab and wreath vouchers.

Dr Findlay: If the Secretary for the Education Department stated that the voucher that was produced was the only one, what would you say ?—ln that case probably Mr Willis's information was wrong.

If you had had originally the information you hare now you would not have made these charges?—Oh, no, I would not.. And when tho Sneddon vouchor was produced?—l thought I was wrong absolutely.

And then you met Mr Sneddon, and asked him whether it was not possible he had signed the voucher “Seddon” instead of “Sneddon”? —Yes: and from what ho said I inferred that he was right and I was wrong. Have you not also expressed your opinion very strongly that intentionally, or unintentionally, Willis misled you all through ?—No. Didn’t you say so, and with deliberate emphasis on tho wharf at Picton?—Ho, I did not.

Do you know Mr Cluston? —Ho, I don’t remember him. I remember meeting a number of people on the wharf at Picton, and probably Mr Cluston was one of them; but all of them were unanimous in the belief that a voucher did exist. v

Didn't you say to Mr R. E. Cluston —- that’s the to anyone else, that you were satisfied AVillis had misled you. and that ho ought to get six months?—Ho. I did not, and the man who said or wrote that is a liar.

Well, what did you say?—l say that

at that time I was confident Air Willis was right. And you did not say Mr Willis had misled you?—No, I swear I did not. I never had anything but the utmost confidence in him.

And now you have admitted that Captain Seddon never got this money? 1 1. am quite satisfied, and in a letter to tile Blender I expressed regret to him and Captain Seddon, although I said I could not express that regret as fully as T could have done if the knowledge iiad come as the result of a pun to inquiry. Well, you have an open and unprejudiced mind?—Yes, I have. And you have yourself seen the system of cheeking tho accounts in the Treasury?—Yes, I have; and I am quite satisfied that the man who can evade that system is entitled to the £7O. (Loud laughter.) Then yon agree that a genuine vouchor could not pass through without there being a record?—Yes: but at the same time I am quite satisfied that those men saw a voucher Then what’s your inference —what’s your explanation?—That it is a most inexplicable mystery. (Laughter.) But you just admitted tjiat it was physically impossible for a genuine vouchor to go through these books without leaving a trace? —Yes, it seems to mo to ho so. Well, then, on the evidence you have heard, and on tho strength of what yon have seen, it is impossible?—lt “seemed” to mo to bo so; it “appeared ” to mo to be so. Mr Justice Cooper: Well it “appeared ” to us to bo an impossibility. Dr Findlay; You were in South Africa in 1902. Now, sunpose that Messre Willis, Larcombe, Lundon, and West, who know you intimately, were to vow that they saw you in Christchurch. and described your umbrella or your suit of clothes, when at tho time yon were in South Africa, what would you say?—Well, if they handled me in tho way they handled this vouchor—if they stated that they camo and shook hands with mo on a particular date, I would have to admit that they were right. But if it was physically impossible for you to be in Christchurch, would it not ho a ease of mistaken identity?—l say I believe these men handled a document: but it may liavo been a “ hoaxed ” voucher. Air Justice Conner: It might ho tho "astral body.” (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett, tho witness said the rnmonr of an improper payment to Captain Seddon came to him prior to his election to the House of Representatives. He heard the rumour early in 1004. and on more than one occasion. To the-best of his recollection it was with regard to a payment of £76. Mr Skerrett: Then the report with regard to tho extra 4s fid is wrong, although, according to tho report, you stated it twice?—Yes, that is wrong. When did you get tho information that Cantain Seddon was in Christchurch between the Ist and Oth of Juno?—From tho newspapers, the “Times” or “Press.” I did not inspect those pnnors myself, hut I believe, and am practically certain, I got the information from Mr Willis. And for many months you had no conversation with anyone in regard to the matter?—Not any. R was quite impossible for mo to take any action in regard to it. Well those newspapers have been searched, and there is no mention of Captain Seddon’s. arrival in Christchurch during that period; and if he swears—as ho will—that he was not there, will you accept that statement? Vcs. I’ll accept it. Then this is an added blunder to the long tale of blunders?—X don’t know that it is an added blunder; but evidently there is something wrong about it. . is it too much to ask you if it is not the crowning blunder of a long senes of blunders?—No, you can’t get such an admission as that. COLONEL PORTER.

Colonel Porter, called by Mr Skerrett merely as a witness corroborative of evidence given by other Governmental officers, stated that from the Ist of March. 1903, to tho Ist September, 1904, ho was commanding officer in Christchurch. Ho services in the matter of reorganising defence stores could have been performed without their coming under his notice, and if any payment had been passed he would have had to approve of it.' Ho such claim was ever made by Captain Seddon or by any other person. MR SNEDDON. Richard Sneddon was called by Dr Findlay, who asked, “Do yon remember awakening one morning and finding yourself famolis?” “Ho,” replied tho witness, with a smile, “I awakened to find myself notorious.” (Laughter.) Continuing, tho witness said he saw Mr Fisher on ihe evening of that day, shout 6 o’clock. Witness was walking along the street when he met Mr Fisher and Mr Willis. Ho was acquainted with tho lastnamed gentleman, and was called by him to stop and speak. Mr Fisher explained who ho was, and asked witness if ho had looked up Ins books in regard to the voucher. : The reply was in the affirmative, and also that the “Sneddon voucher” was quite correct. Mr Fisher asked him it ho ever spelled his name “Seddon,” and he replied, “I think I have written ray name too often not to know how to spell it non’.” In answer to Mr Fisher, the witness said they were quite unacquainted before that time, and it was a purely accidental meeting. All the railway vouchors were printed on white paper. Witness knew all tho clerks in the postmaster’s room, and ho did not think any of them could possibly mistake his signature. CAPTAIN SEDDON.

Captain Richard John Spottiswood Seddon was called by Dr Findlay. In answer to preliminary questions, tho witness said ho was a captain in the Defence Force of the colony. Certain documents were placed before tho witness. and ho described them as representing all the payments he had received for services rendered. Dr Findlay: Have you ever at any time received any amount -whatsoever for the reorganisation of defence stores ? —Ho; never in my life.

In Christchurch?—Neither in Christchurch nor anywhere else. Didn’t you receive tho sum of £7O or anything else?—l never did. It’s suggested that you were in Christchurch between the Ist and 9th of June. Is that so?—Ho; I was not there. (Witness went on to explain that ho could produce letters ho had

received, and copies of letters he had written, which would indicate his whereabouts during tho period referred to.)

In reply to questions by Air Esher, the witness said he did not think he had ever been in the Chief Postmaster's office in .Christchurch, hut lie liad been in the office with the object of gett.ng a bundle of papers, because bethought Mr Willis liad got hold of them, and ho wanted to make sure that Air AVillis hadn’t done so.

Have you ever communicated with anybody, and asked them to sec Air Mciioth on tho matter? —I never asked anybody to see Air Alcßcth. Continuing, tho witness said that in filling up tho hotly of a voucher lie stated that tho claim was on behalf of “R. J. S. Seddon,” but in signing tho receipt or acquittance ho wrote "R. J. Seddon,” and that was his bank signature. But ho sent out dozens of letters which wero signed "R. J. S. Seddon.” In cross-examination by Air Willis, tho witness said ho liad known Air AA’illis for some time before the TaylorSeddon case. At tho suggestion of Air Justice Cooper, the witness handed his bank pass-book into tho Commission. Air AVillis put in tho copy he had made of vouchers that had gone through tho Christchurch Post Office. • Air Justice Denniston said the evidence, except as to tho result of the search of documents in tho Treasury Buildings, was closed.

Tho Commission adjourned until 10.30 on Alonday morning.