21

H.—34

Saturday, 14th Octobeb, 1905. Mr. Willis : In regard to page 19 of his evidence, " He had given Mr. Fisher no other information relating to office matters." He wished to qualify this statement by saying he admitted he did give Mr. Fisher some other information regarding office matters, but that information was not connected with these-charges. He was not charged with giving this other information, and therefore declined to go into it. He simply admitted he did give other information, but declined to say at what time, or give any details about it at all. He would put it on record at the Judges' inquiry ; it had nothing to do with the Seddon voucher. Mr. F. M. B. Fisher appeared before the Board. After some preliminary discussion as to the constitution and authority of the Board, and its powers in regard to summoning him and administering the oath, Mr. Fisher was duly sworn, and gave evidence as follows: — Francis Marion Bates Fisher sworn. Witness (to Mr. Stringer) : With regard to the words on page 490 of Hansard, No. 22 " My first genuine recollection," &c, he thought he was correctly reported ; that was his " revise.', He did not now adhere to the statement he then made ; he knew now it was absolutely wrong. He had stated in this paragraph that Mr. Willis and himself held a conversation as captain and lieutenant of a corps. He had left the corps in September, 1903; the voucher was not seen until subsequent to the 9th January, 1904—four months after he had left the corps. Manifestly, therefore, the statement was wrong. It was made in answer to an interjection across the floor of the House by the Premier, and he (Mr. Fisher) had been anxious to give the Premier all the information he could in order to clear up the matter; but he knew afterwards that the statement was wrong. He did not take the trouble to contradict it in the House. He would have done so had he known of this inquiry going to sit. There was no doubt it was wrong, because he was reporting Mr. Willis as having given him information of a document four months before he saw it— i.e., when in the Volunteer corps. The meaning of the statement he made was—whether expressed or not— that Willis made the statement to him when both were members of the Volunteer corps, witness as captain, Willis as lieutenant. He could not say when he had his first conversation with Willis on this voucher. He had said in Parliament, "I am sorry I cannot give him (the Premier) the means by which it was originally imparted to me." Some time early in the year, he could not say exactly when, it was common rumour that this or some such payment had been made to Captain Seddon. By " common rumour," he meant it was spoken of among volunteering officers. That was how he originally got hold of it. The date of that rumour was early in 1904—exactly when, he could not say. Subsequent to his being elec.ted he had said to Mr. Willis on one occasion that he had heard young Seddon had received such a payment. He had not the slightest remembrance of what further conversation they held or where it took place ; but from what was said he (witness) inferred that Mr. Willis knew something about it. He had gathered that impression from the conversation. Then he went to Wellington and endeavoured to find if there was anything in it. He ascertained that Captain Seddon was in Christchurch from the Ist to the 9th June, 1904, and told him he was going to deal with this information if he got hold of it, and he asked Willis to look up a payment of £76 about that time. He did not keep copies of these letters. Willis looked up the records, and the portion of letter he handed in was an extract from Willis's letter (Exhibit E). As far as witness knew, he had not the whole letter now, but he tore this extract off and pinned it on to his notes. He did not have it with him in the House when he spoke first on the 28th July; and when the Premier asked for further information lie spoke again about three-quarters of an hour later, and quoted the number—lsßl9—and the amount. He had in the meantime refreshed his memory by a perusal of the extract; he thought it referred to the Seddon voucher. He had chanced a good deal in going "nap" on this particular number, assuming it was the Seddon voucher. The extract he handed in (Exhibit E) was part of Willis's original letter. He thought it would be the top of page 27. It read as follows :" If you are right in the amount given you, I believe that voucher was No. 15819, of the 14th June, 1904, and was for £76/4/9. It was charged against the Defence vote, and the particulars on the voucher stated that it was for ' Reorganizing the Defence Stores, Wellington.' You might be able to obtain further particulars from somebody in the Paymaster-General's office, but I do not see that you need any." When holding correspondence of this nature with any one he always told them straight out to type their letters, no dates and no signatures, because he knew the "gang" he had to deal with in the Building; he did not care to trust his correspondence with them. He had no objection to these statements going down on the notes. This was the history of the transaction as far as he could remember, except where he had qualified it by an admission of inexact memory. He would support Mr. Willis in his statement that he had not supplied him with information prior to his (witness's) becoming a member of Parliament; he knew nothing about it before that. Such information as he had before his election was gained merely by rumour; it was that which led him to make inquiries. He could not say whom he heard it from; it was a long time ago. Confirming the story of the rumour, he might mention that yesterday Mr. Russell mentioned that he had been informed by Major Hobday that the latter also remembered hearing the rumour. He did not bother about the matter until he was a member of Parliament. He did not go to Mr. Willis, because he had found him " useful" on other occasions ; he had got nothing of a departmental nature before from Mr. Willis, nor had he sought it. He had assumed, as soon as he became a member of the House, that if improper payments had been made it was part of his duty to exhaust all sources of information, although there was a difference of opinion on this point. It never occurred to him to go to Mr. Mcßeth for information. He knew Mr. Mcßeth. He had said that he had had no information at any time of a departmental nature or of a confidential nature from Mr. Willis prior to becoming a member of the House in