THE VOUCHER ALLEGATIONS. o — Report of the Royal Commission

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11724, 27 November 1905, Page 7

THE VOUCHER ALLEGATIONS. o — Report of the Royal Commission

Full and Complete Exoneration

of Captain Seddon.

No Real Voucher In Existence

Public Accounts Properly Kept.

No Moneys Can bo Paid Out Without Record.

Following is the summarised report of the judgings of the Eoyal Commission: — Judge's Chambers, Wellington, 10th November, 1905. To His Excellency the Governor of New Zealand. May it please Your Excellency: — It having been alleged that in the year 1904 a voucher for the payment of public moneys amounting to between ,£7O and .£BO was issued in favour of Captain B. JS. Seddon for the re-organisation of Defence Stores, and that the money was paid to him at the Chief., Post\Offi.ce, Christchurch, and that the- Audit systsni and-re-cords in connection, -with the issue of public money is inefficient and defective, and that vouchers may be' issued and public moneys may be paid thereon out of the Public Account, and that the departmental books and records may fail to show any trace thereof, Your Excellency, by and with the advice of the Executive Council, was pleased to issue a Commission to their Honours the Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, or to such of them, not being less than three, as should undertake the burden of the said Commission, to inquire into and report upon the questions stated in the said Commission, to which we shall presently refer in detail. We have therefore the honour to inform Your Excellency that, under the terms of tho said Commission, we have undertaken the burden thereof, and we now beg to report as follows: — ->„-. We were authorised and empowered under the said Commission to inquire into and report upon the following questions: — 1. Whether a voucher for payment of an amount by cheque on the Public Account, signed by the payee, could disappear without any record of its existence or payment beinfj left in the departmental books or records.

2. Whether in the years 1903-4 a voucher was issued in favour of Captain Seddon for payment to him at Christchurch out of the Public Account of a sum of between .£7O and .£BO (or any other sum), for the reorganisation of Defence Stores or for any other service. 3. Did Captain .Seddon ever claim or receive any such payment or sign any such voucher?

We began the inquiry into these questions at. Wellington on Monday, the 23rd of October, 1905, and concluded it on Monday, the 6th of November, the Commission, having been formally read at a public sitting of the Commissioners on Wednesday, the 18th of October, 1905. The inquiry was conducted in open Court.

The parties were informed that, upon application to us, we would apply to the Colonial Secretary, under the provisions of "The Commissioners Act, 1903," for authority to summon, and would summon, all material and necessary witnesses whose attendance was required* for the purposes of the inquiry, and that we would require the production of all books and documents which were shown by any of the parties to be material and relevant to the inquiry. The Audit, Treasury, and Defence Departments of tho public service were represented- by counsel throughout the inquiry; so also was Captain Seddon. Mr i'isher was represented by counsel on the 21st, 23rd, and 24th of October, and from that time appeared in person. Mr Willis ap2'.eared throughout the^ inquiry, in jserson. All the parties to" tlfe inquiry were allowed, and exercised, full opportunity to examine- and cross-examine witnesses upon matters in any. way relevant to the questions into which we were authorised to inquire, and tipon which we were empowered to report. ■ In answer to the first question, we report to Your Excellency that it has been fully' established that no public moneys can be paid out of the Public Account of the colony without a record of their payment being found in the departmental books and records, .and that no voucher for the payment of jDubhc moneys out of the Public Account of the colony can be authorised, passed, or paid without a record of its existence or payment being left in the departmental books or records. We have come to the conclusion not only upon the evidence adduced before us by the parties, but also upon a personal examination at the departmental offices, in the presence of Mr Fisher and Mr\ Willis, of the manner in which claims upon the Public Account are examined, approved audited, passed, and paid. (The report then sets forth' in detail the particulars of the system). \ It is therefore apparent that, under the system above described, no cheque can be counter-signed or paid unless it is \ supported by a voucher ;• that no authority can be .given to the bank to pay it unless the jiumter of the cheque, its date, its amount, and the number and amount of the voucher are included in the Bank Advice and in tHe -Treasury Bank Ledger, and also 1 in the schedule of payments attached to the requisition and retained in the Audit Department; that no voucher can be passed by the Audit Department unless it is certified by the certifying officer, and approved by the approving officer; and that independent records of each -voucher, showing the date of its receipt, the particulars of ser-

vice, the name and address of the claimant, the amount of the claim, the amount approved for payment, the date of approval, and the vote and item of Hie vote sgainst which the amount is charged, are kept, both in the Department against which the charge is made and in the Treasury, And it is important to notice that each cheque is absolutely identified with its relative voucher by the fact that the number of the cheque, as well as its amount, is entered in the acquittance at the foot of the voucher before the voucher or the cheque is forwarded from the Treasury. We are satisfied that this system is strictly carried out, both in the Treasury and in the other Departments, and that no voucher can pass through these Departments without a "record being found in the Department for which the service wa6 performed and in the Treasury books, and that no cheque can be paid by the bank which cannot, without difficulty, be ideatified with its particular voucher. The second and third questions referred to us under the Commission are: —

Whether in the years 1903-4 a voucher was issued in favour of Captain Seddon, for payment to him at Christchurch, out of the Public Account, of a sum of between .£7O and «£SO (or any other sum) for the reorganisation of Defence Stores, or for any other service; and did Captaiu Seddon ever claim or receive any such payment, or sign any such voucher? The alleged voucher is stated by those who claim to have soon' it to have been seen at the Christchurch Post Office at some period prior to the 9th of December, 1904, and subsequent to the month of November, 1903, and to have been for a sum of between .£7O Mid .£BO, for the reorganisation of Defence Stores at — according to Messrs Willis and Larcombe — Wellington, and to have been in form, appearance, and requisites a genuine voucher, resulting in an actual payment. It lias been proved that tliere is no entry of any such claim or vono-ier in the books of the Departments. Thaw books hsv3 been examined in a careful and systematic manner by competent persons, who have been examined and eroiS-pxajiii'ied before us, and their evidence han established ths fact that no such entry exists.

The Register of Claims kept in the Defence Department, and the Expenditurebook, also kept in that Department, and the Register of Abstracts kept in the Treasury have been available for Mr Willis's inspection, and we are satisfied that ;. full opportunity has been given to him to ascertain for himself whether or not such a claim or voucher has been recorded.

All payments made to Captain Scrldon out of the Publia Account during tljo period in question have also been examined, and the supporting such payments produced, and inspected by Mr Willis and Mr Fisher, and lnn'e been put in evidence in this inquiry ; and none of thes^ payments or vouchers are for anyservioo or amount such as Mr Willis. Mr La.rcoml.e, and Mr Wost allege they saw ?tafc?<3 in the voucher referred to by them, nor for any payment made in Christchurch, nor resulting in any cheque countersigned by any Christchurch official. The alleged voucher must, if it existed, 'iave been forwarded by the Treasury to Mr Mcßeth, the Chief Postmaster at Christchurch, in .order that he might, on obtaining a duly signed acquittance, ■iountersign the cheque; and the cheque, if it existed, must have been upon the Christchurch branch of the Bank of New Zealand. This is admitted by Mr Willis and Mr Fisher.

The vouchers for the period stated have been examined, and there are none during chat period in favour of Captain Seddon cor the reorganisation of Defence Stores, ->r for any payment at Christchurch. It '.las been admitted that the allegedvoucher .vas for a sum of between <£70 and .£BO, and for the period between the Ist of De•cmber, 1903, and the 9th of December, 1904; and, in order that a full margin for :>rror might be allowed^'evcry cheque issued on the Christchurch branch of the bank during that period for sums of from £40 to .£IOO has been compared, each with its relative voucher, and full opportunity !ias been giv-an to Mr Willis to inspect and compare each such cheque and voucher. The departmental examination covered, indeed, a much wider range — namely, from April, 1903, to June, 1905— and the result of these examinations has been proved to '3e that there is no entry of any such claim )r payment, that no cheque was issued for vny such claim or payment, that no /oucher existed for any such claim or payment, and that the payments to Captain Seddon sup}3orted by the vouchers already eferred to are the only payments made to "iim during the period in question. Captain Seddon gave evidence before us, and was •ross-examined by both Mr Fisher and Mr Willis. He stated emphatically that h< : iad never performed any such service ac that alleged, that he had never claimed for any such service, that he had never -signed any acquittance to any voucher ir Christchurch, nor received any cheque countersigned by any Christchurch official. Mr Fisher without hesitation admitted that he was satisfied with Captain Seddon's evidence, and that he now fully bc'ieved that Captain Seddon had never received any payment for, nor made any claim for, the reorganisation of Defence Stores, and also that, if he (Mr Fielier) !iad had priod to the 28th of July, 1905. the information he had obtained during the course of this inquiry, he would not have made the charge made by him in Uw> Hou?c. Mr Willis also admitted, bui not so freely, that no such claim or payment had been made to or by Captain Seddon.

We therefore find that it has been estab'ished that voucher was in the ycart ' 19U3-4 issued in favour of Captain Seddon for payment to l;im at Christchurch out ol .ho Public Account of a sum .of between | £70 and <£80 (or any other sum), for the of Defence Stores at Welington, or for any other service, and thai Captain Seddon has never claimed or received any such payment, or signed anj such voucher.

Willis, Larcombe, and West all state that the reason for their alleged scrutiny (if the voucher was that they considered it an improper payment, because thej thought that Captain Seddon was incompetent to perform the work charged for; yet, although Willis was an active Volunteer officer, and all •were daily in the habii of handling vouchers, no on© of them k prepared to state who, was the certifying ufficcr, or who tlie approving officer, to t voucher which they say attracted their at tention as one for an improper payment It is hard to understand how their memories can be defective in respect to this important and prominent " feature in fvoucher. If their 1 examination of the document was so incomplete that these es , sential matters were not noticed by them, very little reliance ' can be placed upor wl^t they state concerning the other matters; if their memories are. so defective thap they have, forgotten who it was whe certified to the performance of the service andl who it was who authorised its payine!«, then the value of their recollection of tiio other matters stated by them suf fers accordingly. It is sufficient for ub tc say had they been able to state the names of the certifying and approving officers, inquiry could have been made pi these officers, and their failure or omissioito givp such information has ' closed thiavenue'.

No one of them is able to give any evei approximate idea of the date at which they claim to have sepn such a document Although they say it may have been in th< beginning of the year, none- of their.

will say whether it was in the summer, autumn . winter, or spring of 1904. each ono preferring to re6t upon the general statement that it was between the beginning of 1904 and the date of the 'hearing of the Seddon — Taylor caso in December, 1904.

They all admit that it was the practice to entoT tho number and unte of receipted vouchers in si record-book kept in the Christfhurch Post Office, and apparently it would have been the duty of one or other of tliese witnesses to have entered this particular voucher; but an examination of this book demonstrates lhat no such voucher has been entered. The entries in this book have been compared with the Treasury record of vouchers sent to Christchurch in 1903-4, and agree with it, there being two minor clerical errors only — one in which Id is entered as 9d, and the other where £7 0s 4d is entered as ,£7O 4s. If this voucher did in fact exist, no reason has been given by these witnesses why it should not have been entered in due course in this book.

In conclusion, we state that, it having been proved that no voucher corresponding in any particular with the one alleged to have been seen by these witnesses was ever brought into existence by or on behalf of Captain Seddon, the evidence of tli-sso witnesses can only be explained in one of three ways — (1) that they have knowingly stated what was untrue ; (2) that they have been hoaxed by some one in somo way lodging a bogus voucher in the Christchurch Post Office (this is the theory suggested by Mr Fisher); and (3) that they have deceived themselves into the belief that some voucher, possibly a "Sneddon" voucher, seen by them was the voucher in respect of which they have given evidence.

It is not necessary under the terms of tho reference for us to express, and we do not feel called upon to express, any opinion as to which of these possible explanations is the most reasonable.

Whatever may be the most reasonable explanation of the evidence of these witnesses, we find specifically that tliere never was any genuine voucher or document in the Christchurch Post Office which could have afforded any reasonable ground for the statements mad© by these witnesses.

We formally report, in answer to the questions referied to us by the Commission: — „

1. That a voucher for payment of an amount by cheque on the Public Account sigucd by tho payee could not disappear without a record of its existence or payment being left in the departmental books or records.

2. That in the years 1903-4 no voucher was issued in favour of Captain Seddon for payment to him at Christchurch out of the Public Account of a sum of between £70 and <£80 (or any other sum), for the reorganisation of Defence Stores, or any other service.

3. That Captain Seddon has never claimed or received any such payment or aisfn-od Any sucli voucher.

The Commission authorises ns to make such recommendations as we think fit respecting the costs of the partie3 and witnesses in the inquiry. • We recommend that the costs^of tho Departments represented at the inquiry and of Captain Seddon be paid put of the Consolidated Fund.

We recommend that the witnesses, Messrs Larcombe, West, and Lundon, be paid their expenses of attendance, including their steamer fare, such expenses to be allowed at the rate of 12s a day, with an extra allowance of 3s per night for each night on which they were necessarily absent from their respective homes. Mr Willis was in a peculiar position. He was made a party to the inquiry, and he has failed to establish or in any way justify the allegations made by him. Considering, however, the fact that the inquiry was of a public nature, and that he was a necessary witness, whose attendance and presence was required by the Court, and that his salary has censed, he having boon suspended from his office, we recommeud that he be paid at the late of 123 a day from and including the 21st of October, 1905, until and including the 7th of November, 1905, with an* extra allowance of 3s fer each night during that period that he was absent from Christchurch together with his railway and steamer fares from Christchurch 'to Wellington -and from Wellington to Christchurch.

We forward with this report a copy of the minutes of evidence taken at the inquiry.

We have, etc., J. E. DENNISTON. J W. B. EDWARDS, J. THEO. COOPER, J.