THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9117, 16 May 1891, Page 2

THE PUBLIC TRUST OFFICE.

(Fbom Ora Own Cobbespondent.) Wellington, May 15. The Royal Commissioners are still pursuing their investigations into the Public Trust Office and its transactions. From what I hear outeidei I should imagine that the full report of the evidence when presented to Parliament will be distinctly lively reading. According to some of the witnesses who have been examined, the mode of iuterrogation resembled the cross-examination of adverse witnesses by a barrister of the " good old sort." One witness complained that leading questions were put to him of such a nature that he could not possibly return a direct affirmative or negative reply, and then a plain " yes" or " no" was insisted upon ; while, when he endeavoured to return an accurate answer or to explain why a direct " yea " or "no" could not be a correct reply, he was sharply reprimanded and accused of "fencing" with the questioc This is said to have occurred in several instances. Some of the witnesses seem to have feared all along that (to quote the words of one of them) an attempt was being made to put them in a hole—to catch them in traps—and then use their answers to the detriment of the Trust Office. You will, of course, understand that I am not pretending to speak from my own knowledge of what passed, as I was not (and could not have been) present; but these matters are very freely spoken of in town, and I simply give the tale as told to me, just as I did that of the commissioners. On the other Bide the impression is undoubtedly gaining ground, that a great deal too much was sought to be made (I do not say by the commissioners, but by some commentors who have eagerly seized ou the evidence as the text of condemnatory sermons on the Trust Office and its officers) of the facts disclosed in the evidence. For example, I informed you some time ago of the suspicion that all the fnss made about a bracelet, said to be missing, would turn out to be based on a mere error in description, and that the missing "bracelet" would turn out to have been a "bangle" of little value, which had been sold at auction. This, I nowlearn, is proved to be the case. I mentioned to you before the explanation given by the officer who took home that piece of lace to bo valued, and forgot it. No doubt the explanation seemed, at first sight, of an unfortunately involved character as compared with the plain and damaging fact, but there seems no doubt of its perfect truthfulness. Indeed, it is well known by myself and many others that that particular officer was dangerously ill for a lengthened period, that his life for some time was almost despaired of, and that he has only just recovered. People are apt to forget little things when they are lying "grievously sick almost unto death," but it is undeniable that many foolish things have been done by officers, and these stupid errors of judgment are being pictured in the most vivid and repulsive colours by the enemies of the Public Trustee and his department. Unhappily public confidence has been in a large measure killed, and it will take a good deal to re-establish it. Only a few days ago, three separate persons told me they had altered their wills in which the Public Trustee was named as executor, because they could not now feel sure that their estate would be properly administered. Assuredly they do not stand alone in that feeling or in that course of action. The prevalent opinion expressed emphatically is that nothing short of a State guarantee (as in the Government Insurance department) and an adequate system of inspection will restore public confidence for the future. I hear that the examination of the Auditorgenera! and of the Audit department officers by the Royal Commission produced some sharp verbal encounters, the Auditor-general (who is rather an " ugly customer" to tackle in debate) at last declaring he would not answer any more questions or permit bis officers to do so unless they were treated with more consideration. I understand that one point of dispute between tho commissioners and the witnesses was as to the form of certain entries which the commissioners insisted were inaccurate and should have been condemned by the Audit department, while the Audit officers maintained that the entries were strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law, and could not have been different without being in contravention of the law. The commissioners, I hear, next endeavoured to extract from the witnesses an expression of opinion that the law might therefore be altered so as to comply with the entries to be made in the form preferred by one of the commissioners: but the witnesses generally, declined to commit themselves to such an expression of opinion without due consideration, as the alleged defect consisted mainly in the law not agreeing with the commissioners' opinions of what it ought to be. Judging from what has transpired as to the direction taken by the commissioners' inquiries, those gentlemen appear to be under a misconception touching the duties of the Audit department as prescribed by law, and to mistake its functions for those of an inspector, which it does not legally possess, but which, in the opinion of the Public Trust officers themselves, ought to be vested in some officer, and freely exercised. You will understand that I have been simply conveying to you the statements made to me and opinions expressed io reference to this important subject of public interest, but that I make no statement or expression of opinion of my own on the matter.