THE HEYES INQUIRY

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 67, 28 June 1910, Page 5

THE HEYES INQUIRY

MR. HEYES REPLIES TO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS. By Telegraph—Press Association, Wellington, Last Night. Apropos of an extract from the' Dunedin Star, commenting upon the retirement of Mr. Peter Heyes from 'the public service, Mr. Heyes said that its main allegations were quite erroneous. "The first," he said, ''is that Mr. Heyes submitted his property to the Advances Department, for the purpose of obtaining : loan," and that this was answeruDle. "The first/part of this statement is admittedly true," said Mr. Heyes, "but if such a course was clearly wrong, ana so improper that it justifies dismissal, the question arises, why did the persons through whose hands it had to go not recognise the impropriety and prevent it from going on? The loan had to be approved by the Board, consisting of the Minister, the Public Trustee, a nonoffcial member (Mr. lumber), besides "myself. That the loan was in contemplation and had been effected was known ,t'o t'he- Valuer-General and his chief cierk, who give direction as to the valuation. :/Tihe valuer of the property was not-' 1 ia my department. The DeputySupefintendent of "Advances to Settlers, the Audit Inspector, who had to pass the payment, and the Controller and Auditor-General, who had to sign the cheque, would all see that a loan was being granted to 'Mr. Peter Heyes.' | "Then again, if the transaction was on the face of it so, improper, why liave (i commission to enquire into it? lihe act was admitted, though it may, on close consideration, be considered inexpedient, and to be avoided as leading to possible wrong. There was no wrong in the transaction itself. The Department was full of money at the time. .1 could liave got more money on tile property from an outside lender. I gave my security as others did, and got the money at the same rate. It was admitted at the enquiry that there was ample security, and security to the ex-j tent of justifying the loan. TJie valua-i tion upon which the mortgage was lixedl was shown, by comparison with valua- j tions of land adjoining, to have been! moderate, t.,1 and -all the others con-J nected with.,,the matter may have been! wrong in riqifc objecting to the loan on] the ground that I was the chief officer! (except the Minister) of the Depart-! ment, but this point did not occur to | them.

"The second statement hi the extract is the more serious one. 'That, i being. dissatisfied with the valuation put| '<sn 6 tt'e""p'<Jperty' by the responsible official of the Department, he should have imported into the transaction another of 'his own officers.' This statement is untrue' in every respect. There is ro evidence that anything of the kind was* done. The Jiaj.uation was made bv an officer not in&'my department, but in that of the Valuer-General. 1 have been denied a copy : of the minutes and' report of the Commission, so that I am placed at a great disadvantage. At the pres-j ent time I am not going to say auy-j thing 'of the commission, nor of the treatment meted out to me. I do say. however, that' it lias not been, and eaiinffibj'be, shown that the nublic suffoi'P(Qj;j|mv administration. During the long Jgi'in )0f my service T have devotodj myself to tli'e public service, and lion- j estly?ffi#oavoi«red to faithfully dis-| char&fe-'iny 'duties. Tf I was wrong inj a loan at the usual rates, on j security amply sufficient, it was an w. vor of judgment, for which I have suffered sufficiently, without having exaggerated and incorrect statements made to the detriment of my character"