THE NEW LIBERALS.

Otago Witness, Volume 23, Issue 2684, 23 August 1905, Page 34

THE NEW LIBERALS.

THE VOUCHER QUESTION.

FURTHER PEIITIONS RECEIVED.

WELLINGTON, August 15. In the House of Representatives on the

lsth insfc. Mt FISHER asked leave to present a petition from Joseph Willis, William John LsTcombe, and Thomas Walter West, of the staff of the General Post Office, Christohuroh. -Mr SEDDON rose to a point of orderviz., that .the petition dealt with a matter which was now before an inquiry ordered

by the House. He asked that Mr Speaker . should first examine it to see if it was> in order. It might be said that the objection was raised in order to prevent the petitioneirs getting before the House the Donteats of their affidavits; but the House had -instructed .the Auditor-general to inquire -and report on the matter, and he contended it should not be dealt with in any way "by Parliament until- the AudrtorgeDeral's report had been received. He further urged .that no one had a right to bring before the House during the course of an inquiry any evidence bearing on the -inquiry. Such a course would be unfair »nd prejudicial to the interests, of the other party.. He considered it was his duty as Leader of the House to draw Mr Speaker's ~ ■.•hter.tion to a petitioa of this kind. If, under a (similar set of ciroumsbances, a jimilar attempt were made in a case before the " Supreme Court it would be treated as pontempt, and th© parties concerned would be liable' to puniahmen.fc. Mr FISHER, in a peSonei explanation, )tated that there was nothing in the petition Df the nature of evidence, and that the }rord affidavit was not mentioned in it. " Mr SEDDON went on to again ohallenge . Ihe petition, on the ground that it was opposed to the Standing Orders of the So\lS6* Mr -MASSEY did not .think ihe Premier had made out a very strong oase, and quoted May, the authority on parliamentary procedure, in support of his contention that the, petition was in order and should be received. Mr FISHER said it jnaAfcened very little whether the pfeiition was received or not; but he ±hougnt the members of the House .should know its contentsMr TAYLOR, pointed out thai the petition of- the Treasury officials the other day wae not in ooxier, as it made reference- to *' previous debate, but although a single

voice would have blocked it no objection

Sras taken to its presentation. He further "■ *aid tho attitude adopted by the Premier ' - seemed- to indicate ihkfc he was "desperately . anxious that no petition of .the land Mr Fisher wished to present should be placed Before the' House. The Premier's conduct

seemed to evince a deske to avoid full - s investigation. A very great principle was at stake "in this matter, and if Parliament was the final Court of Appeal it must pre-

serve' its 'full powers and not allow any

party to fritter them away. „ The SPEAKER ruled that .the petition was in order, and oould be received. It tias then read by the Oerk of the 'House, »nd set out:^ 1. That your petitioners are informed thai $cur honourable House has appointed tho Auditor-general to hold an inquiry with reference to an ailsged payment to Captain R. J. Seddon of a sum of JE7O, or thereabouts, for Reorganising the defence stores at Wellington. 2. That. your petitioners have reason to <be- , lieve that they are likely to be called as witnesses at such inquiry. 3. That your petitioners believe thai, in the Interests of all parties concerned, such inquiry should be open to the press, and that the witnesses thereat •should be cross-examined by, or on behalf of, Captain F. M. B. Fisher, a member of your honourable House. Tour petitioners therefore humbly pray that ycur honourable House will be pleased to direct that the said inquiry shall be open to this press, and that all witnesses thereat may bo cross-examined either by Captain Fisher cr by some other person -on his behalf. The PREMIER fcl&en presented the fol- . lowing petition from Captain R. J. S. Seddon : — Tbat annexed hereto is a statutory declaration by me denying the accuracy of the statement made by Mt F. M.. B. Fisher, M.H.K., that- 1 had received a payment of between

£70 and JEBO, or any other sum, for reorganis-

ing the defence stores. ' Your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House will be pleased to cause the jaid declaration to be considered in the course of any inquiry relating -to the alleged payment. The PREMIER asked that the petition be forwarded to the Auditof-Genersl. Mr- HERRIES pointed out that the Standing Order had been broken by attaching the declaration to the petition. The, PREMIER then began to read the " declaration, but was interrupted by points of order. Mr SPEAKER said the Premier had taken the declaration from the petition, and now asked leave to move that the petition be referred to the Auditor-general with .tihe declaration attached. After furfcheT discussion objection was raised to leave being given to move the motion, and it could not therefore be put. The result was that Captain Seddon's petition was' received, but without liis declaration.

CAPTAIN SEDDON'S DECLARATION.

The following 1 is the declaration which iras attached to Captain Seddon's petition : I, Richard John Spotswood Seddon. of Wellington, Captain, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows: — 1. During the whole period of my employment in the public service of New Zealand I have never received from the Imperial or New Zealand Government any payment whatever in Christchurch.

2. I have never performed any services in or about reorganising defence stores. 3. I have never received in Christchurch or elsewhere any payment of between JS7O and £80, or any other sum, for reorganising defence stores, either from the Imperial or New Zealand Government.

4. I have read the statement made by Mr Fisher, M.H.R., with respect to a voucher for * payment io me of bstween £70 and £80, and I say that I never saw cr received, or received or signed, any such voucher, cr received any Buch payment. 5. I have never at any time, or at any place, received any sum or sums of money whatever from the New Zealand or Imperial Governments to which I was not legally and properly entitled under the terms of my engagement as & servant or officer of either of the said Governments.— (Signed) E. J. S. Seddon. AFFIDAVITS BY CIVIL SERVANTS. The full text of the affidavits of Messrs Larcombe. Willis, and West, which have

been placed in the hands of the Auditorgeneral, has now been published :

William John Larcombe swears — (1) That I am a clerk employed in the General Post Office at Christchurch; (2) that at some date in the year 1904 there passed through my hands a voucher made out vi favour of R. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation of defence stores at "Wellington; (3) that such voucher is for an amount exceeding £70 ; (4) that I showed Ike 3aid voucher to Joseph Willis, a clerk in the chief c °'k's room at the Christchurch Post Office, that the amount of such voucher was ci. a against the defence vote, but I cannot leaieniber which part of such vote; (6) that at the time I showed the said voucher to the said Joseph Wil'is we both remarked on the- fact of such a voucher being made payable at Christchurch. Joseph Willis swears— (l) That lam a clerk employed in the chi&f clerk's office in the General Post Office, Christchurch; (2) that some time during the year 1904 I saw a voucher made out in favour of E. J. S. Seddon for the reorganisation of defence stores at Wellington; (3) that such voucher was for an amount exceeding £70; (4) that the said voucher was shown to me by William J. Larcombe, a clerk employed in the chief clerk's room in the Post Office, ChristchuTch ; (5) I distinctly remember that the amount of such voucher was charged against the defence vote, but which part of such vote I cannot remember; (6) that at the time the voucher wa3 shown to me by the said "William James Larcombe we both remarked on the fact of such a voucher being made payable in Christchurch. Thomas "Walter West swears— -(1) That lam a clerk employed in the office of the chief postmaster at Cbristclrurch ; (2) that some time during the year 1904 I saw a voucher made out in favour of E. J. S. Seddon for reorganisation of defence stores; (3) that such voucher was for -an amount exceeding £70.