H.—34

8

4. From the evidence given before us, we are convinced that some officers of the public service are of opinion that all members of Parliament are entitled to obtain from the officers of any Government Department information which would not be given to ordinary individuals. This impression should, in our opinion, be at once removed, and regulations made setting forth how, from whom, and under what conditions members of Parliament desiring to procure information from Departments of the State may obtain the same. As witness our hands, at Wellington, this 18th day of October, 1905. H. S. Waedell, Chairman. Chas. Kettle. J. W. Poyj?ton.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Tuesday, 10th Octobeb, 1905. The Chairman read the authority from His Excellency the Governor under which the Board were sitting. Charges against Joseph Willis read. All the documents (copies of letters, telegrams, newspaper-clippings, &c.) relating to the present charges, which had been placed in the hands of the Board, were handed to Mr. Willis, with the explanation that these were open to him equally with the Board. After some discussion it was decided that the Press should be excluded, on the grounds that the inquiry was merely a departmental and private one, and as such the Board were not able to open ie to the Press except with the direct authorisation of the Governor so to do. The inquiry was simply into the question of whether or not certain breaches of the regulations had been committed by certain persons, by giving information to outsiders re a Treasury voucher, which information had been obtained in the performance of their duties in the Post and Telegraph Department by these persons so charged. The inquiry had nothing whatever to do with the existence or non-existence of the voucher itself, and that point could not be gone into, although, for the purpose of argument merely, it might be necessary to assume the existence of such a voucher. The Board were willing to assume in Mr. Willis's favour that he believed the voucher did exist, but whether or not this belief was a correct one was beyond the scope of the inquiry. The question was simply this : Assuming the voucher to exist, was Mr. Willis justified in speaking about it to a person or persons outside the Post and Telegraph Department for any purpose whatsoever, or had he thereby committed a breach of the regulations laid down for the guidance of the Post Office officials, and of the declaration of true and faithful service made by Mr. Willis when entering the Department ? The constitution of the present Board was in accordance with the Act of 1871; it was simply a "Court of Inquiry": Mr. Willis was the defendant, and the onus of proof rested on the Post Office Department. The six charges preferred against Mr. Willis were then read to him separately. He admitted having done all the acts and things mentioned in the first five charges, but denied that such acts constituted breaches of duty. The sixth charge he denied, and, as it was necessary (in order to substantiate this charge) that the sworn evidence of Mr. F. M. B. Fisher, M.H.E.—now in Wellington—should be heard, the Postal Department agreed to let this charge stand over for the present, and deal with the first five. Thomas Rose, representing the Post and Telegraph Department, sworn. Witness produced declaration signed by Mr. Willis (Exhibit A). Witness : Before any officer was employed in the Post Office he was required to make a statutory declaration, before a Magistrate or other authorised person, that he would be true and faithful to the trust committed to him. The part he (Mr. Rose) wished to quote particularly was the first part, " I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will be true and faithful in the execution of the trust committed to my charge." At the time Mr. Willis signed this declaration he was a cadet, afterwards he was a clerk, with various duties assigned to him from time to time. In addition to this declaration, every officer was required to read the rules and regulations provided by the Department for the guidance of officers in the performance of their duties. He produced these regulations (Exhibits B, C, and D). Exhibit B was Rule 1, Exhibit C was Rule 44, Exhibit D was a certificate of having read the rules, all of which were signed by Mr. Willis (Mr. Willis admitted his signature to these). These were all the regulations on which he (Mr. Rose) relied, and he laid greatest weight on the latter part of Rule 44 with regard to making known information which a clerk might obtain by means of his office. It was submitted that Mr. Willis, having in the performance of his duties become possessed of certain information, had made use of that infor-