17

I.—6a,

Mr. FitGzerald. 14th July, 1880.

he spent the £300 which he received ?—We thought we had a right to demand that, and we considered he was bound to send in a bill of costs. 290. I notice that his account is sent in to Nahe, as a private client, instead of to the Government? —I consider that Mr. Sievwright is wrong when he says this is a private account, as he was appointed to act by Messrs. Sheehan and Nahe, two Ministers of the Crown. We asked Mr. Sievwright how he spent the £300, and he replied that he had paid it to Mr. Eees on public service under the authority of two Ministers. 291. Birt even as a matter of form should there not have been an account against the Government of this £300 ? Yes, and we have Mr. Eees' vouchers. 292. Should not the Audit office have obtained an account from Mr. Sievwright showing how he had spent on the public account the public money which had been placed in his hands?—l think we did obtain such an account. 293. Is such an account amongst the papers now on the table; is the account rendered by Mr. Sievwright against Nahe the one you refer to ?—Yes. 294. Do you know that that account amounts to £377 ?—Yes. 295. And that Mr. Sievwright says that the Government is not indebted to him for any part of that money ?■ —I am not aware that he said so. 296. (Bortions of Mr. Sievwright's evidence bearing on this point were then read.) On hearing that evidence, I have no hesitation in saying that if that statement of Mr. Sievwright's had been before the Audit, he would have been called upon to repay the £300 into the Bublic account. 297. Sir George Grey.] Supposing the Government had regarded this as public money, and that it was an advance made to Nahe as part of a public policy, and supposing that Mr. Sievwright has misunderstood the thing, would you still consider that he was bound to repay the money ?—I think Mr. Sievwright is bound to repay the money, if he did not spend it on prrblic affairs. 298. Supposing it was shown that it had been a misunderstanding on Mr. Sievwright's part ?—I do not see how we get away from the fact that Mr. Sievwright positively states he has spent the money on private matters. I think Mr. Sievwright could make Nahe pay him. If you state positivelythat this was a private account, the question must be settled in another way. 299. Mr. Ballance.] Have you any recollection of Mr. Sievwright having said that he was not employed by the Government ?—Yes, he said he was not employed by the Government as a ground for declining to account for what he said was not public money; but I don't see that has anything to do with the question, as to what he did with the public money he did actually receive. 300. You have said that the question which concerned you was the disposal of the money ?—Yes. 301. Then when Mr. Sievwright furnished you with his account, did you consider that the money was expended on behalf of the Government for public purposes ?—Yes, certainly. 302. Then would you consider that that account was a sufficient answer to your memorandum, asking him to furnish the account, and saying that you came to the conclusion that it was public money ? —Yes. 303. The Chairman.] You considered it public money because vouchers for the £300 were furnished to you ?—Yes. 304. Has any commnuication taken place between yourself and Mr. Sievwright in reference to this money since the receiving of this account which you considered to be an acknowledgement on his part that it was public money he was dealing with ?—No. 305. Mr. Wood.] You say this amount might have been charged to unauthorized expenditure ?—■ Yes, but it would have to be voted by the House. 'The result would,be that the Imprestee, Mr. Best, would be relieved of responsibility. 306. In the mean time Mr. Best troubled about this matter ?—No, he is simply a debtor to the Crown for the amount. 307. Sir George Grey.] Suppose Mr. Best died now, might it not be an awkward matter for his family ?—Yes, I believe his estate would be debtor to the Crown.

Monday, I®h July 1880. The following memorandum was handed in by Mr. FitzGerald : — " I understand that the point upon which the Committee desired me to make an explanation was whether Mr. Sievwright is properly discharged of the use of public moneys, seeing that he used it to pay what he asserts to be a private account. I have carefully studied the evidence taken before the Committee last year, and after full consideration I see no reason to alter the conclusions stated in my memorandum of the 9th April. If Mr. Sievwright's evidence is to be taken as a statement of fact, no doubt he should refund the money to the public account. But he is evidently under a misapprehension. He ignores the fact that he did draw the money from the Treasury 'on account.' And. I gather from the evidence ot all the Ministers, and the Under-Secretary to the Native Department, that the money was issued and intended to be issued as an advance to be accounted for, and that having been paid as fee to counsel under Ministerial authority, it is properly accounted for so far as Mr. Sievwright is concerned. I further respectfully submit that the money could only be recovered from Mr. Sievwright by action in the Supreme Court under the Crown Debts Act; and with the evidence before the Committee, which would be repeated doubtless in the Supreme Court, I do not see how any hope can be entertained of a verdict. And I may respectfully submit that the whole question is one of a quasi political character, involving not the misuse of public moneys by an accountant to the Crown, but the use of public moneys by a Minister without the authority of Parliament, and is therefore a question with which it is clear, from the Bevenues Act, the Audit Office was not intended to deal. I would point out that had the voucher come up to the Audit Office charged to unauthorised, the Audit Office must have passed it, and if charged to

Mr. FitGzerald. 18th July, 1880.