A PUBLIC SERVICE SCANDAL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10493, 28 June 1910, Page 2

A PUBLIC SERVICE SCANDAL.

MR, HEYES JUSTIFIES HIS POSITION. (Per Pkess Association.) Wellington, June 27. Apropos of an extract from the Dunedin Star commenting upon the retirement of Mr Peter Heyes from the public service, published in the New Zealand Times, Mr Heyes, in conversation with a representative of the Times yesterday, said its main allegations were quite' erroneous. "The iirst," he said, "is that Mr Heyes submitted his property to the Advances Department for the purpose of obtaining a loan," and that this was censurable. "The first part of this statement is admittedly true, but if such a course was clearly wrong and so improper that- it justifies dismissal the question arises why -did notthe persons through whose hands it had to go recognise the impropriety and prevent it from going on?" The loan had to be approved by the Board, consisting of the Minister, the Public Trustee, a non-official member (Mr Kember), besides myself. That the loan was in contemplation and had been effected was known to the Valuer-General and his chief clerk, who gave directions as to the valuation. The valuer of the property was not in my department. The Deputy Superintendent of the Advances to Settlers' Department, the Audit Inspector (who had to pass the payment) and the Controller and Auditor-Gen-eral (who had to sign the cheque) would all see that a loan was being granted to Mr Peter Heyes. Then, again, if the transaction was on the face of it so improper, why had a commission to enquire, into it? ■ The act was admitted. Though it may, on close consideration, be considered inexpedient and to be avoided as .leading to possible wrong, there was no wrong in the transaction itself. The Department was full of money at the time. I could have got more money on the property from an outside lender. .1 gave my security as others did, and got the money at. the same rates. It was'admitted at the inquiry that there was ample security, and security to the extent of justifying the>loan. ' The valuation upon which the mortgage was fixed was "shown, by a comparison with the valuations, of land adjoining, to have heen moderate. I and all the others connected with the matter may have been wrong in" not objecting to the loan on the ground that I was the chief officer (except the Minister) of the Department, but this point did not occur to them. The second statement in the extract is the more serious one, namely, "That being dissatisfied with the valuation put on the property by the responsible official of the Department, he should have imported into the transaction another of his own officers." "This statement," said Mr Heyes, "is initruc in every respect. There is no evidence that anything of tho kind was done. The valuation was made by an officer not in my department, but in that of the Valuer-General. I have been denied a copy of the minutes and report of the Commission, so that I am placed at a great disadvantage. At the present time, 1 am ,not going to say anything of the Commission nor of the treatment meted out to me. I do say, however, that it has not been and cannot be shown that the public suffered by my administration during the long term of my service. I have devoted myself to the public service, and honestly endeavoured to faithfully discharge my duties. If I was wrong in asking for a loan at the usual rates on security amply sufficient it was an error of judgment, for which I have suffered sufficiently without having exaggerated and incorrect statements made to the detriment of my charater.