I.—2a.

4

Department in the Civil Service, and who was chosen out of a number of men because of his intelligence to perform certain work—l asked him did lie think it possible that a man could carry this voucher—the Seddon voucher—forty yards, and then show it to me in mistake for this one — the Sneddon voucher. One is a copy from memory of the voucher which passed through our hands made out for " R. J. S, Seddon," for an amount exceeding £70 for reorganizing Defence Stores, and the other is what is known as the " Sneddon voucher." The Seddon voucher was made up by me from Messrs. Larcombe, West, Lundon, and my own memory of it. I pointed out to Mr. Warburton the difference in the colour of the two vouchers, and also the different particulars. The white voucher is a Railway voucher, and all Railway matters are made out on those white forms, and those facts are well known to the four men who gave evidence. We have been dealing with vouchers in the Christchurch office for some years. The Defence vouchers are made out on blue papers, but there are exceptions—there are urgent vouchers, which are made out on a different form altogether from either of these. 6. Mr. Davey.~\ What is the colour of the paper?— White paper. Urgent vouchers for certain Departments are made out on white paper, and the printing is in red lettering, but nearly all other vouchers, with the exception of urgent vouchers, are made out on blue paper. Well, that fact was perfectly well known to the four men who gave evidence, and when we were giving evidence before the Auditor-General we were giving evidence at that time in anticipation of the voucher being found. We knew the voucher was there, and we expected that the voucher would be found if we supplied the Auditor-General certain particulars which would aid him in his search. Some of the evidence which we gave, and which would help to prove the case or assist us in proving the case before a judicial inquiry, was not taken because the Auditor-General was conversant with those facts, and he did not require them. Well, then, again I asked, as I have stated, for the Treasury books and for the other records which would give the particulars in full of the voucher in question, and, as I say, Mr. Warburton asked what was the use; it would only prove his books either right or wrong, and he could not realise that his clerks were just as liable to error as the clerks in the Treasury Department. Then, again, there is this fact to be taken into consideration, that Mr. Warburton told me that his inquiry was not to satisfy the House of Representatives, nor to satisfy the public of this colony, nor to satisfy us witnesses, but simply to satisfy him that this payment did not exist. I think also in connection with this his report to the House states, " That, in my opinion, the certificates in question are correct in substance and in fact " ; but his inquiry would not have satisfied the House of Representatives if they had known exactly what the inquiry was —they would not have been satisfied with his opinion. Then, as a further reason why we should not proceed further, he stated that we might go on for a month, and that he had his ordinary work to do. When I said we should go further with the inquiry, he considered he should make his report to the House of Representatives, and then if I wanted a further order of reference that I should apply to the House of Representatives for it. I might say that it was ten days after that before his inquiry closed. Then, again, I asked him as a particular favour if lie would let me see the Treasury books and compare the records one with the other. I also asked him if he would personally examine the records himself in the Treasury books and the records in the other Departments and compare them with the vouchers, but this he did not do. I pointed out to him that in my examination of the vouchers in the first place I had erred through overconfidence; I was so certain the voucher was there. I was not looking for fraud or any tampering; I was simply looking for the voucher with particulars equal to those I saw on the voucher in question, and which I had handled, and not finding it there I went on to others. I wanted to see these vouchers to compare them again, but I had no chance. 7. Mr. Taylor.\ With the object of seeing them a second time?—l would like to have seen them a second time to have been able to compare the whole of the particulars on the vouchers. There is no doubt, as I put on record, there must have been some trickery with this voucher, or else it would have appeared. 8. The Do you suggest at this stage that vouchers were tampered with? —I suggest this, that a voucher for a certain sum of money with certain particulars for certain services went through the Christchurch Post-office on a certain date, and it cannot be found in the AuditorGeneral's inquiry, 9. That does not tally with the statement you made before that you believed it was possible for that voucher to have been tampered with or altered? —I believe a way in which the AuditorGeneral's inquiry could have been proved absolutely abortive was by the temporary substitution of a voucher, or the voucher might have been tampered with, the particulars of the name and the particulars of the services might have been altered, and in that case the Auditor-General's books would have been perfectly correct and shown perfectly accurate, and the inquiry from our point of view would have absolutely broken down. 10. Mr. Davey.] Would you suggest at the same time that all the books had been tampered with? —They would not let me see them. If a voucher had been tampered with—the only thing that was shown to me were certain vouchers—there was no necessity seeing that they objected to allow me to see any other records but the vouchers. There was no necessity to tamper with any records or books, because they showed me nothing but the vouchers. And you know perfectly well, sir, that in any system in book-keeping, if you wanted to find whether a particular payment is made, you would not go to the receipts with which a voucher in this instance corresponds, you would go to the cash-book and cheque-book, and compare them with the receipt. That is the only way by which you could find whether a certain payment had been made in any system of bookkeeping. Mr. Warburton took a very long time to consider what he would allow me to put on record. I did not have an opportunity of giving what evidence I wished. I was allowed to talk to the Auditor-General, and the points which he considered were necessary he put in, but some of the points I wished to make were not put on record in the Auditor-General's inquiry. He considered for some time before he would allow me to place on record my statement that his books