I—7b

2

Act of Parliament, which is mandatory ?—I think that section virtually requires me, under the circumstances, to report this matter, since the transfer back of material valued at £15,000 in respect of the transfer of which money was passed before the 31st March affects the certificate; for the transfer has, since the certificate was given, been disclosed to be a transaction to which the Audit Office objects. 22. That is no answer to my question—yes or no? Do you consider that where there is an option to you —a discretion in reference to a paper, such as that under an Act of Parliament —it is mandatory that you should put it before Parliament? Is not Mangatu No. 1 by Act?— Yes. The Act does not require that Mangatu No. 1 Account shall be printed., but that it shall be laid before Parliament. It never occurred to me that there was any distinction between printing and writing. 23. At all events, you have never previously on any report made under section 72 taken it upon yourself to print any papers?—l do not recollect more than one report under section 72. That was the correspondence necessary to explain the note to the Public Accounts as to the failure of the Mines Department. - 24. Did you send that in duplicate to the Speaker? —I sent it first of all, as I have already explained, to the Speaker of the Legislative Council alone, and I sent it in duplicate. I withdrew it in order to lay it before both Houses. As I had only three copies I could not give both Houses two copies each, so I gave each House one copy, and, I think, one of the clerks of the House asked me if I had another copy to spare. It appeared to me convenient to the House for the officers to have two copies. 25. Did you send the two copies to the Speaker so that he might send one on to the Legislative Council, or did you send two copies to the Speaker and two copies to the Speaker of the Legislative Council ?—No; I sent nothing to the Speaker of the Council. It was my first intention to send a copy to the Speaker of the Legislative Council also, but it appeared to me sufficient—and I did not want to go beyond what was sufficient —to send a copy to the House of Representatives. 26. Then this report we are now considering was not sent to the Legislative Council at all ?— No. 27. Why not ? The wording of the section is : "If the Audit Office objects to any parts of such abstract or Appropriation Account it shall nevertheless certify the same, with such remarks thereon as it thinks fit, which shall be published and laid before Parliament, together with such abstract or account." Surely the Legislative Council forms part of the Parliament of the colony. I want to know why you did not send the report to the Legislative Council ? —lf the report should have gone to the Legislative Council, it is a fault that it did not go. 28. You admit that it should have gone ?—I wished to avoid doing more than I need do. It occurred to me that I should refer the matter to the House of Representatives first. 29. Matter you consider of importance to members of the House is not sufficiently important to go to the Legislative Council?— No. This is in respect of the expenditure of a particular amount of public money, out of particular votes. 30. At all events, you admit not complying with section 72 ?—lf section 72 requires me to put that particular report before both Houses of Parliament, I have not yet fully complied with the section. 31. Is it a proper thing to give one branch of the Legislature a few days' start of the other ?— I could not answer that question. 32. Was there any particular hurry for this to come before the House now? —I think there was. I think it was too long delayed. 33. You think that, having kept it from March last, the beginning of the session, the matter should go to the House in October?— The matter was not kept from March last. It was discovered about the 20th July (I am speaking from memory) that the material on which the Railway Department had realised £15,000 had been taken back a few days later. Then the Audit Office stated that the transaction would not have been passed if that information had been at its disposal. 34. Well, you had sufficient information in July last to report it, if you thought fit? —I had then, but I represented it to the Government on the 15th September. 35. Why did you not report it in July, when you were aware of the transaction ?—I sent it to the Government for an explanation, and no explanation came from the Government until the Bth October, in your letter, stating that the transfer would be withdrawn. 36. And that is what you were waiting for? —Yes. 37. Supposing the Government had never replied to you, you would never have reported it?— I had taken steps to report it on the 10th October. On the Monday I had written a memorandum on the subject, but before I could forward that memorandum your letter of the Bth October was delivered to me. 38. I want to know why you held it over, not receiving a reply from the Government from the 20th July to the date you write this letter you have referred to ?—The 20th July did not give me the complete information. It was when these vouchers 39. You wish to alter what you stated about having information on the 20th July ? —I had a letter of Mr. Gavin's, of the 9th September (8.-22, 1898, page 3); that is the date when the information came to the office. 40. That is the £17,000 transfer. lam asking you about this £15,000 ?—Well, the £15,000 is in that sum. That is a transfer of material back to the Railway Department. The voucher which was passed on the sth March is for the fifteen thousand pounds' worth of material comprised in this proposed transfer of £17,000. 41. Then there are not two transfers—one of £17,000 and one, of £15,000? —There are two. transfers in one direction, and a proposal of two transfers in the other. This transfer of £17,000 is objectionable on account of its comprising material for which the Railway Department received £15,000 last year on a voucher passed on the sth March.