I.—Ga

16

Sir Geo. Grey. 13th July, 1880.

268. You say that injustice was done in one case by the taking of certain land ?—Yes. 269. Where was that?—At Opunake. 270. The C/iairman.] Do I understand you to say that the Government depended upon Mr. Sheehan and Hoani Nahe to arrange for the defence of the Natives ?—That is the impression on my mind. 271. Would you consider that your desires had been carried out if you found that the whole matterhad been left to Nahe as far as the selection of counsel went ?—I am perfectly satisfied with the arrangement which was made. 272. Would you have been satisfied if you had known that Mr. Bees was only retained for one of the two objects for which the Government put aside this money ?—(The Chairman here read an extract from Mr. Sievwright's evidence.) 273. I understood you to say that the Government had a twofold object in voting this money ?—Yes,. I had three objects : Ist, the setting right of general grievances ; 2nd, the alleged grievances of Wiremu Kingi; and, 3rd, the defence of the Natives. 274. Do you consider it satisfactory that the retention of Mr. Bees, or any other counsel, should have excluded that element in the arrangement?—l think that if Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Nahe were satisfied I should also have been satisfied with the arrangements for the defence. 275. Mr. Moss.] If the Commission which you contemplated had been appointed, would the work of the lawyer engaged have been of a peculiarly onerous character ?—Yes, it would have required great research to have got up all the facts, and questions of law of a very difficult nature would have arisen. I believe that the mere getting up of the case would have been a stupendous work. 276. Are you aware that Mr. Bees has had a great deal of experience in these Native matters ?— Yes, and I believe he is a person who is particularly calculated to influence the Natives and win their confidence. If I had had to make the choice of a lawyer I should have chosen him, for I believe he isthe ablest and fittest man in the country for the work. 277. Mr. Ballance.] Are you aware whether Mr. Eees went to any trouble in order to get information on this subject ?—I could not say whether he did so or not. 278. Have you ever heard that he made some enquiries !—No.

Wednesday, 14th July, 1880. Mr. J. E FitzGerald, Auditor-General and Comptroller, being duly sworn, was examined. 279. The Chairman.] The committee wish to know whether you still adhere to the opinion expressed in the following paragraph in your report :—" The solicitor is, in the opinion of the Audit, properly discharged by accounting for the money as paid to counsel by order of a Minister. Against Mr. Eees himself no proceedings can be taken by the Audit, because he did not receive the money as imprest, and the money ceased to be public money when it came into his hands. It was to him a final payment for professional services rendered, by the order and upon the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown ?"— It is our duty to see that when public money is placed in anybody's hands it is spent in the manner intended. In this case we considered that the receipt of Mr. Bees for money paid to him for legal advice was a proper receipt for services rendered, especially as that expenditure had taken place under the authority of Ministers. We did not consider it the duty of the Audit to say whether or not Mr. Eees should have been employed. The money was placed in Mr. Sievwright's hands to pay for legal services to be rendered in connection with two classes of work; that is to say, for the defence of certain Natives in an action which was being brought against them, and for services in connection with the settlement of their titles to lands. We hold that it was not the duty of the Audit to enquire what sort of legal advice was required by the Government or by the Natives. All these were matters which rested with the Executive Government of the country. We say that the money was paid to Mr. Sievwright for certain purposes, and that he handed over the money to counsel in a legitimate manner. 280. There was no appropriation for this money ?—I cannot answer that question. We do not know whether there is an appropriation or not until the claim made by the Treasury is shown upon the voucher in so many words. We have no knowledge as to the vote to which the Government intend to charge money, of which they authorise the payment, except as it appears charged on the vouchers. Of course if it was shewn to be an unauthorised expenditure we should have passed it as such. 281. Hon. Mr. Lick] It seems that that voucher was stopped in its progress ?—-Yes. 282. And the reason for that was that you were not instructed to place it against any particular vote ?—Yes. 283. Mr. Ballance.] Have you any doubt about this solicitor being discharged, as you state in your report ? —No. 284. Is your reason for refusing to release Mr. Best that the money had not been charged to any particular vote ?—Yes. 285. Could you not charge it to the vote for contingencies ?—There is always some latitude allowed in the case of the vote for contingencies, but I am not prepared to say that we should have considered this a legitimate charge on the contingencies vote. At the same time I cannot say that if it had been charged to that vote we should have refused to pass it. 286. But supposing that it had been put down as unauthorised expenditure ?—Then we should certainly have passed it. 287. And you are not certain what you would have done if it had been charged to contingencies 1 — No; contingencies is a word which has a very wide meaning. 288. Have not moneys been paid from contingencies when the payment has been authorised by Ministers ?—Yes. 289. Mr. Johnston.] I suppose the Audit office is quite entitled to ask Mr. Sievwright to show how

Mr. FitzGerald. 14th July, 1880.