3

A.—3b

Union Company to supply them with piles, this arrangement being altogether apart from his Government office. When the case was tried it was found that the whole sum of $1,082 had been paid out of the Government funds, and had not been accounted for. Then Makea Daniela declared that he had, on the receipt of £70 from the Union Company, paid the whole of that sum into the Treasury ; but the purser and captain of the " Ovalau" showed that no such sum had ever been paid to the accused, but they had paid some private accounts for him in Auckland, and deducted some freight due, and had paid him the balance, about £25. Even this sum it was found he had not paid in. Then Makea Daniela handed in accounts to show that he had lost money by the piles provided for the use of the company. This last was a matter that could not afiect the case, but the statements made so annoyed persons of the Native race then present, that Taraare and others gave evidence that Makea Daniela did not pay the sums he had given in evidence for the piles so supplied, and that the accounts that he had handed in to the Court were in fact faked and fraudulent. Finally Makea Daniela claimed that he would have paid in the £35 but that Mr. Moss had written to him that there was no need for him to do so, as the Government would pay it for him. —W. E. Gudgeon.]

Judgment of Court. —The Federal Government v. Makea Daniela. The plaintiffs claim a refund of two sums of money —namely, £60 18s. and £39 14s. —drawn by Makea Daniela in order to construct the Ngatipa Road, this money being still unaccounted for. This has in every respect been a very unsatisfactory case ; not only does the defendant appear to be devoid of that moral sense which might be expected in a man who has been intrusted with almost unlimited control of the public funds, but he has, also, a tendency to make light of gravely suspicious actions on his own part, and, worse still, alleges the orders or concurrence of the late Resident in order to excuse errors of omission or commission with which he has been charged. That there has been little if any efficient control exercised over the administration of the public funds may be true, but that the orders of which we now hear so much were ever given seems exceedingly doubtful. Moreover, the contention that an order given by the late Resident would justify any man in doing any illegal action, or in allowing the finances of the country to be shamefully squandered, is too absurd to require an answer. There is nothing in the Constitution Act, or other laws of this Federation, to justify the supposition that any British Resident has had the power to administer the revenues of this Group without the concurrence of the Government thereof ; and the mere assumption by a Government officer that the Resident had such powers, will not save him from the logical effect of acts committed under this assumption. The case itself presents no unusual features : Makea Daniela admits that he undertook the construction of the Ngatipa Road at the request of Mr. F. J. Moss ; but he asserts that he did not do this work in the capacity of Federal Paymaster, neither also does he admit that he was a contractor. But he does admit that he drew from the firm of Donald and Edenborough the moneys that form the subject of this action —namely, £60 18s and £39 14s. —as also other moneys, making in all £108, which moneys he expended upon the Ngatipa Road. The evidence, documentary and otherwise, shows that the £60 18s. was advanced by the firm of Donald and Edenborough in their private capacity in May, 1897, that is, two months before it was voted by the Parliament. Subsequently the same firm advanced £39 14s. in the following sums : On the 10th July, 1897, £8 14s. ;on the 17th July, 1897, £18 ; in August, 1897, £13. These three sums were paid out of " Unauthorised." There is, however, one matter that is not clear, and that is, that Makea Daniela is quite positive that he left for Tahiti on the 13th July, 1897, that the road was then finished, and that he drew no money after that date, though he seems to think that Mr. Moss did draw money for odd jobs after the period mentioned. If we are to accept this as an explanation, then the question will arise, how did Makea Daniela obtain the £108 that he admits having received 1 This has not been explained. Makea Daniela claims that he undertook to construct the Ngatipa Road, at the request of _Mr. Moss, who could get no one else to do it; but this tale is evidently incorrect, for Ngamaru Ariki deposes that, with the view of saving the country expense, he offered to construct the road in the same way as he built the Residency —that is, by the aid of Makea's people —and that he asked only $50 for the work, but that Mr. Moss told him it was too much. There seems to be very little doubt that Ngamaru did make this offer, and, therefore, it is a mystery how Mr. Moss should subsequently have authorised a payment of $1,080 for the same work. M. Daniela further states that he was authorised to give $1| per diem to his labourers ; that is, half a dollar more than the customary wage of unskilled labour ; but it does not appear that any supervision was exercised over him ; it would seem that he was allowed to do pretty much as he pleased with the funds of the Federation. Mr. F. J. Moss did, however, take one very proper precaution when certifying to the payment of the £60 18s., for his memorandum reads, " To be certified as paid, and to whom, by M. Daniela, who is to receive the cheque." This remark I construe to mean that M. Daniela should produce proper subvouchers in support of the payment of the money intrusted to him. In other words, that he should produce proof that the money was expended, and not put into his own pocket. This, however, is the one thing that M. Daniela has not done, the one order of the Resident that he has not obeyed ; and, therefore, we find that the two sums now claimed, amounting in all to £100 125., have not been accounted for up to this day, twenty-six months after the advance was made. It is still in advance, and, stranger still, we find M. Daniela under the impression that he is badly treated in being called upon to show cause why he should not refund the money to the Federal Treasury; in other words, give an account of his stewardship. That he was not called upon to do this during the financial year of 1897-98 only proves how utterly worthless the system of audit was at that period.