27

I.—2a

27. What I want to know from you is this: A clear and definite statement is made by Mr. Willis that he was refused to be allowed to investigate or see certain books of account which he asked to see. Did you refuse him access to those books ?—lf you ask me to add a word to what appears in this evidence, I say that no word more than appears in this evidence ever passed. 28. Leaving out the evidence altogether—you conducted the inquiry ?—That is what confused me in the first instance. 29. Can you remember what transpired at the hearing ?—Nothing transpired except what is in the evidence. 30. You were Controller and Auditor-General investigating this question : do you not remember what took place ?—This took place—nothing more or less. 31. Do you remember Willis making application to you to see certain books and records, and your refusing to grant that?— Nothing beyond 32. Did you refuse Willis access to certain books and records ? —-I cannot interpret that. That is the confusion I got into before, through being asked to speak without regard to the evidence. 33. You cannot remember what took place ?—I can. This is all that took place—not a word more or less passed. 34. Does the evidence contain an answer to this question lam putting to you : When Mr. Willis states in his evidence before this Committee that you refused him access to certain records and books which he desired to investigate did you or did you not refuse him ? —I must answer by repeating these paragraphs, and it is not right that I should be asked to add a word to the evidence : " This would go only to show that the Treasury books were right or wrong according as they agreed or differed with the 1 Audit Office books and the voucher exhibited." " There is a possibility of error. Then, as I have said, the whole thing rests on the original voucher, and I think a voucher could very easily be tampered with." If you ask me what I feel on the subject, it is that Mr. Willis did not expect what he was asking, just as he did not expect what he was asking a little before on the same day, that his suggestion should be adopted of taking out all the vouchers for every amount and publishing them. 35. When there was an investigation on a question of this kind, do you consider it right of the Auditor-General to refuse the persons affected the opportunity of investigating the books connected with the investigation ?—I am quite prepared to defend every word of my report in Parliament. Is this Committee going into that question ? 36. Did you or did you not refuse Mr. Willis access to certain records and books to which he desired to have access ?—I have already stated in evidence this morning that not a word more or less passed than appears in the evidence appended to my report. It is not strictly correct to say that he was refused or was not refused, or that no notice was taken of his request. 37. We will go to page 14, in reply to Mr. Rutherford's question, " He wants access to books of account showing the records of payments of those sums of money," you said, " He did not have access to those books, and I should have had to go to the Treasury and Defence books to give him access—they were not my books." Did you not consider as Auditor-General that when there was an investigation of this kind taking place you had a right to produce the books of any Department in connection with the inquiry?— Why, sir? 38. Did you not consider that you should ?—I was inquiring into the question whether the certificates of certain officers of the Administration were correct. It was not Mr. Willis's inquiry. Why should Mr. Willis have access to those things ? But I will say this : that if I considered it would have helped my inquiry in the slightest degree I would have given Mr. Willis access not only to the Treasury books, if I could have, but I would have asked for access to any books and records I had. The entries in the Treasury books could only be the entries of the original vouchers that had been produced to him. 39. Was your investigation wholly and solely to ascertain whether statements made by officials in connection with this voucher question were correct or not?—My answer was in direct terms of that: "I have the honour most respectfully to state that I have inquired accordingly, and to report that, in my opinion, the certificates in question are correct in substance and in fact—that during the whole period of Captain Seddon's employment in the public service —from the 31st March, 1903, to the 30th June, 1905—n0 voucher was ever issued and passed through the Treasury for a payment to him for the organization or reorganization of Defence Stores, that no such voucher exists, and that no such payment was ever made." The reference was : " Extract from the Journals of the House of Representatives, Thursday, the 10th day of August. — Resolved, That the Controller and Auditor-General be requested to inquire and report in terms of the prayer of the petition of J. B. Heywood, Secretary to the Treasury; E. J. Collins, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury; and T. P. Grey, Acting Under-Secretary for Defence, presented this day; such inquiry to include the whole period of Captain Seddon's employment in the public service." 40. Did you consider that Mr. Willis was justified at the inquiry in asking for the production of certain documents and books to satisfy the investigation which was being made ? Mr. Willis made application to you for the production of certain documents and records. I understood you to say you were there investigating not for Mr. Willis, to ascertain what he sought to ascertain, but merely to find out whether the officials who had certified that there was no voucher had made correct statements or not ?—I was making the inquiry, and if I had considered that it would have helped in the slightest degree that inquiry, I should have given him access not only to the books he asked for according to the evidence in the report, but to any other book or any other records. My officers produced to him every voucher that could possibly include the alleged voucher. In the Treasury books, as I explained, there could only be the entries of those vouchers. 41. You say there is no butt to the Treasury check-books ?—There are no butts in the ordinary sense of the word—the cheques of the Paymaster-General are without butts.