1.—2.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. INDEMNITY BILL. Monday, 2nd August, 1875. Mr. Batkin, Secretary to the Treasury, examined. 1. The Chairman.'] You are aware that a correspondence has taken place between the Immigration Minister and the Treasury, on the one side, and the Control Department, on the other, with reference ( to the expenditure on immigration, which the Control Department considers was in excess of the sum ' provided by law ?—I know that such a correspondence has taken place. 2. You have no knowledge, except of an indirect character, with regard to the correspondence ? —No. 3. You are aware, however, that circumstances did arise under which the Control Department demurred to the issuing of any further moneys for immigration purposes during the financial vear just expired ? —I am. 4. As far as your knowledge goes, did that arise from the fact that the Treasury calculated that there was a larger sum available for immigration than the Control Department calculated there was under law ? —It arose, no doubt, through Sir Julius Vogel, who held the offices of Colonial Treasurer and Immigration Minister, supposing that the unexpended appropriations of the Act of 1871 would be available. 5. Did you, as Secretary to the Treasury, hold the same opinion ?—I did. 6. And the Treasury generally concurred with Sir Julius Vogel ? At all events, it had never been questioned in the Treasury ? —No. 7. And it was first brought under consideration by the Control Department raising an objection to the issue of further moneys ?—Yes ; when I say that I held the same opinion, I may explain that I did not hold it at the time when the Control Department raised the objection, but I had held it some time previously. 8. You had held it, in fact, up to the time when the liabilities became an equitable charge upon the colony ?—I believe that at the commencement of the financial year, if the expenditure of the past periods had been charged back to the appropriations of past periods, the same would have been available, but practically the Immigration Department charged against the votes of the years 1873-74 and 1874-75 the expenditure they might have charged back on the permanent appropriation in the Act of 1871. 9. Are you aware of any reason why the Immigration Department did not make these charges back ? —I am not aware of any reason, but my opinion is that it was a mere oversight. 10. Is it the duty of any spending department to determine against what vote, and under what law, the expenditure has to be charged? Is not that rather the duty of the Control Department ? —No, I should consider it the duty of the spending department in the first instance. 11. Then the Committee is to understand that the practice is, when an issue of money is required, that the requisition of the spending department should point to the vote against which it is to be charged ? —Precisely 12. Are we to assume that the Control Department examines to see whether there is a sufficient sum to cover the amount of the requisition at the credit of that vote? —Yes. 13. You have said that you do not know why the Immigration Department failed to use the authority, which at one time it possessed, of charging back the cost of a service ?—I have no knowledge on the subject. 14. Nor is it part of the practice of the Treasury to investigate into the details of expenditure?— No, unless there are manifest objections. The Treasury follow the direction of the spending departments, from the Ministers of those departments. 15. At the time when it was omitted to use the subsisting authority, and charge back certain immigration services, Sir Julius Vogel was, I think, Minister for Immigration and Colonial Treasurer ? — Yes, at any rate part of the time. 1G. Mr. O'Eorke was for some time Immigration Minister. It is possible that the omission to use that power might have occurred while he was in office ?—I think it must have occurred while Sir Julius Vogel was Minister for Immigration. 17. Mr. J. Sliepliard.~] Mr. O'Eorke ceased to be Immigration Minister in 1873? —I am not quite certain of the date. 18. Sir F. D. Bell.'] "What was the total sum that forms the amount of the indemnity which it is proposed to ask Parliament to grant ?—£84,046. 19. According to the statement transmitted by you in your memorandum of February 12th, 1875, the amount of balance unexpended on immigration on June 30th, 1874, was £240,150? —Yes. 20. How was it that it escaped the observation of the Treasury that, under section 55 of the Act of 1871, the appropriation of £200,000 made by that Act expired on January 1st, 1874 ?—I may say that in the first instance, when I had the return prepared, I had it prepared simply upon the requisition of Sir Julius Vogel. He asked me what the unexpended balances for immigration were. 1 did not then go into the question as to whether it was available for immigration or not, but left it to him to determine. My impression, that to a large extent the balance was available, arose from the fact that I remembered quite distinctly that the clause of the Immigration Act which provided the vote of £200,000 up to the 31st December, 1873, stated that it was to cover expenses incurred ; and I thought that a considerable amount of the expenditure incurred prior to that date, and not yet paid, might be paid out of the balance. 1—I. 2.

Mr. 'Batkin.

2nd Aug., 1875