THE HEYES CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10508, 16 July 1910, Page 4

THE HEYES CASE.

COMMISSION'S REPORT BEFORE -PARLIAMENT. (Pee Press. Association.) ■Wellington, July 15. A statement was made to the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister this evening in regard to the recent trouble in the Income Tax Department and the resignation of Mr Peter Heyes (Commissioner of Taxes and vameiGeneral), and Mr" Dugdale i (Chief Valuer)! Sir Joseph Ward also rea-d the report of the Commission ot theinquiry under the Civil Service Act which investigated the charges m connection with the Department I lie charges were first investigated by two Judges of the Supreme Court, out as Mr Heyes represented that lie had not had an opportunity of putting his case properly before the Judges, a Commission was appointed, and Mr Heyes was given an oppoi'tunity .of appearing before the same and; calling witnesses. The Commission consisted of Mr W aloenrave (Under-Secretary of Justice), JJr Fitchett (the Public Trustee), and Professor Salmond (Solicitor-General). The Commission found that Mr Heyes had not been guilty of bribery or corruption. The Prime Minister said he regretted that an officer in the position or Mr Heyes had been placed in the unfortunate position of being called upon to resign. He read 1 the verbatim report of the Commission, which showed that Mr Heyes had, in September, 190b, made application for a loan <it £l-00 on a property situated in Wellington lerrace which lie had agreed to purchase for £1560. The Commission found that Mr Heves had wrongfully procured a special valuation of this property so that he could obtain the £I2OO loan lie wished, and he also claimed and took the benefit of rebates under section 35 ot the Advances to Settlers Act, though he was not legally entitled' to them. The valuation on which the loan was granted was made by Mr Dugdale (Chief Valuer), and was for £2040. The Commission had no reasonable doubt that Mr Heyes and Mr Dugdale acted in concert. Mr Heyes denied that he took any action to procure the nomination of Mr Dugdale as valuer, but the Commission did not believe this statement, as Mr Dugdale's appointment was directlv due to the interference of Mr Heyes." On behalf of Mr Heyes it was stated that immediately oil the purchase of' the- property by him lie was offered £2OOO, and the Commission was satisfied that Mr Heyes was offered a. loan of £ISOO by a private lender. Mr Heyes also improperly obtained advances on a property at Karamea, on the West Coast of the South Island, on January 14, 1907. The property was valued and reported upon. No account was taken of the timber on the -property in the valuation of £674 made by the local valuer, as timber was not a security oil which the Board could make an advance. For some reason, however, which does not appear, he mistakenly reported that the property, .was good for a loan of £6OO, that amount being £2OO in excess" of the maximum loan which could be granted on' thai? valuation. The application came before the Board on January 29, 1907, when a loan of £4OO was offered, but Mr Heyes wanted £SOO. On January 31 a letter was written by Mr Wad-dell (AssistantSuperintendent of the Advances Office) to Mr Campbell (Valuer-General), pointing out the discrepancy between the local valuer's valuation of £674 and his recommendation of £6OO, and asking that the report be • referred back to the valuer with a. view of increasing the valuation. Although there was no direct evidence, the commission was satisfied that that letter was written by the direction of Mr Heyes. The letter was forwarded by the Valuer-General to the local valuer, who replied decline ing to alter his valuation. This letter was forwarded to the Advances Office, and shortly afterwards Mr Dugdale (Inspecting Valuer) went from Wellington to the West Coast with tli is. letter in his possession, and sent for the local valuer to' meet him at Westport. An interview took place there on March 7. 1907, at which Mr Dugdale represented to the local valuer that the timber was taken into account by the Board in valuing the security. The value of the timber' was agreed to as £SOO, and the local valuer's letter was endorsed to the effect that the timber was estimated at 15,000 ft. per acre, worth 6d per 100 ft. Royalty was not included in> the valuation. This endorsement was signed by Mr Jones (the local valuer) and Mr Dugdale. Eventually Mr Heyes rei ceived the loan of £SOO applied; for.' The Commission found that Mr Heyes, in co-operation with Mr Dugdale, knowingly procured l an improper loan from the Advances to Settlers Office by misleading the local valuer and by failing to inform the Board of material stances which would have induced the Board to refuse to make an advance. The Commission came to the conclusion that Mr Heyes had been guilty of a. grave impropriety, and that his conduct was without justification. The report of the Commission, had been considered by the Government, and as an outcome Mr Heyes had been called upon to resign as from June 30. Mr Dugdale was also asked to resign, and both officers had tendered their resignations accordingly. The Prime Minister said the loans which had placed Mr Heyes in such an unfortunate position had not resulted in a loss to the country; He moved that the report be laid on the table and printed.