The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5813, 15 November 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1879.

The report has been published of the select committee of members of the Legislative Council who were appointed to inquire into and report upon the several contracts for railway construction entered into since 1878, and also to report upon the efficiency of the present system of audit. The document is emphatically a condemnation of the administration of the late Government. The committee report that they “ are of opinion that the ‘ ‘ provisions of the Railways Conatrnc- “ tion Act have not been fully carried “ out in entering into these contracts,”

that this was done; on tbe advice of the then Attorney-General, Mr. Stout ; but strange to say, this opinion, though recorded in the office, cannot be found. Owing to the provisions of the Railways Construction Act not having been complied with, which require that all contracts shall be submitted to the Governor in Council, and also that the route of the whole distance shall be surveyed before any such contracts are entered into, tho committee declare that “ the safeguards “ which the House intended to create with “ regard to the expenditure of money “ and the incurring of liability were not “ observed.” Fortunately, as it happens, tho liabilities incurred up to the present are not very heavy, and only amount to some £348,000, and the control of tho expenditure has since come back into the hands of the House. Thanks to an excellent innovation introduced by Mr. Richardson, by which all appropriations are only made to cover one financial year, there is no longer any possibility of further evasions of the law. The course adopted by the late Ministry in connection with these railway contracts has since been declared absolutely illegal, both by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. Their opinion was taken by the Controller-General on November 3, and they replied to the effect that they considered that both the Railways Construction Act and tho Immigration and Public Works Act, 1878, both having been passed on the same day, should be read together, and that there is nothing unreasonable or inconvenient in all the Acts in connection with the subject being given effect to. That, consequently in cases where the Railways Construction Act was not complied with, any contract would be illegal. In reply to a farther question put by the ControllerGeneral, the law officers of the Crown slate that they ‘‘ are of opinion that the “ certificate, plans, and estimates must “ include the whole line between the ter- “ mini named in the Acts.”

From this it appears that the Grahamstown railway has been from first to last absolutely illegal. The attempt made by Mr. Stout to set aside the Railways Construction Act has been authoritatively declared not only a straining of the letter, and a violation of the spirit of two Acts passed while he himself was in office as Attorney-General, but absolutely a violation of the law as it stands.

We are quite content to leave the question of the illegality of tho Graharastown railway out of consideration for the pre' sent, although wo may remark in passing that there are some very instructive tables of expenditure and liabilities in connection with that line appended to the report before us, which are well worthy of comment. The important point at issue so far as the public is concerned is— How comes it that this illegal expenditure was allowed to pass the ControllerGeneral’s Department! A careful consideration of the evidence given by that officer shows clearly that before the expenditure on any railway contract then in hand could bo authorised, it was necessary that the Order-in-Council showing that the work had received the consent of the Governor-in-Oouncil should bo presented. However, it appears that after a payment had been made it occasionally happened that an Order-in-Council had to be obtained which would be regarded as covering the requirements of the Act by the Audit Office. It was clearly put by Mr. Fitz Gerald that if anything came before the Department which was clearly illegal, it was their duty to refuse to pay. It was further explained that an Order-in-Council was held by the Department to be sufficient authority for any ordinary payment. In one important instance—viz., the Graharastown railway the Order-in-Council was not presented, but it was admitted by Mr. Fitz Gerald that it was through an oversight on the part of the clerks, who had omitted to notice the provisions of tho Railways Construction Act, 1878. In respect to the Grahamstown railway, it appears that although the first contract was let in September, and the first voucher for payment presented in April, the first Order-in-Council was not obtained until July sth. Consequently, if the production of the Order-in-Counoil had been insisted upon, the contractor would have been kept out of his money for three months. No doubt the Control Department have a very difficult task. As an instance of how difficult it is for an officer to keep within the requirements of the law, we may mention that it was shown that there was no definition of an Order-in-Council known. It was also stated in evidence given by Mr. Fitz Gerald that “ half the money paid under the unau- “ thorised vote is put under that vote at “ the instance of the Audit Office.” Tho onerous nature of the duties imposed may be inferred from the fact that it was admitted “ that undoubtedly the Control is “ required to take cognizance of all Acts of Parliament.” If, therefore, we are compelled to admit that in this particular instance the Control was not quite equal to the occasion, we do so with no intention of casting much blame on the department. In July, in the ordinary course, these payments on the Graharastown contract would have been made ; they would still have been illegal, and from the evidence it seems that it is exceedingly doubtful whether it was anybody’s duty to point out the illegality. This need not cause any surprise, as the Con-troller-General asserts “ that a very “ largo amount of money is voted “ very loosely indeed.” It is no doubt impossible for the Control to undertake to enquire into the legality of all Orders-in-Council; the Controller-General admits that if one was clearly illegal within his knowledge he would refuse to pay moneys under it. Further than that, it would be unreasonable to expect him to go. Tho real difficulty would be to control any Minister of Public Works who, like Mr. Macandrew, when asked by Mr, Waterhouse what ought to be done with respect to fulfilling the Conditions of section 3 of the Railways Construction Act, the powers of the Appropriation Act being exhausted, replied: “If those powers “ were exhausted, and the question “ turned up during my administration, I “ think I should find some way of meeting it.” We think so too.