a.—2

88

1354. "We observe that in these vouchers there is again an expenditure for port wine, mullet, old torn, brandy, fancy biscuits, salmon, lobster, preserved peaches, and entertainments at the theatre : are these also of a kind not usual to be charged to the acquisition of land ? —They are very unusual charges indeed. 1355. Adding the vouchers you have produced to-day to the one for £1,000 to Teira, what is the total sum charged to the acquisition of the "Waimate Plains in this way ?—£2,000. 1356. Have you any reason to believe that there are any other vouchers of a similar kind, which have also been charged to the acquisition of the Waimate Plains ? —I have not. 1357. Would there have been any means of tracing this expenditure, if it had not been for the accident of your attention being called to it by this Commission ? —I do not think that the expenditure of this money would ever have been shown unless my attention had been so directed to it. ' 1358. Are we, then, to understand that a sum of £2,000, which was charged to the acquisition of the Waimate Plains as having been paid to certain Natives, turns out, through an accidental investigation, not to have been so paid at all; that nearly all the money passed into the hands of persons other than those who signed the vouchers; and that it was paid away for purposes which were not disclosed to the Audit ? —I am sorry to say that it is so. 1359. So that, in fact, the official transaction was closed in your office when the vouchers signed by the Natives were passed through ; while the sub-vouchers which have now been produced would never have been brought into your office at all but for the inquiry made by the Commission ?—The transaction was closed when the imprestee, Major Brown, claimed credit for having expended £2,000 in respect of the Waimate Plains, and furnished receipts to that amount from the Natives. 1360. But would these sub-vouchers ever have come to light at all if it had not been for this inquiry ? —I think not. 1361. How was it that the existence of these vouchers was actually discovered, and what were the steps that were taken to obtain their production ? —After Sir Dillon Bell had called my attention to the matter on board the " Hinemoa," I felt it my duty to report the matter to the Native Minister; and, acting upon his instructions, I telegraphed as follows to Major Brown : " The Hon. the Native Minister requests that you will be good enough to forward to Wellington the accounts paid by you out of the sum of £1,000 charged in your imprest account as paid to Teira and others under date July, 1878." Major Brown replied by telegraph: " The accounts paid out of £1,000 on vouchers signed by Teira and others are posted to go by this morning's southern, mail; also accounts paid for supplementary subsequent expenditure for the second £1,000, under other vouchers. There are receipts deficient, under £40 altogether, which are now being got; as also telegrams bearing on the accounts." These accounts reached the department by the following mail. 1362. After what has transpired, we wish to ask you what, in your opinion, was the character of the vouchers which were originally sent in to discharge the imprestee from the £2,000 P.—l think they did not disclose the whole transaction. If they had, the Auditor-General would never have passed them. 13-63. Why would not the Auditor have passed them if their true character had been known to him at the time ? —Because they are not proper charges in the acquisition of land. 1364. We are to understand, then, that, according to the rules of the Audit Department, vouchers of this character would not have been passed as properly chargeable to votes granted by Parliament for the acquisition of Native lands? —The Auditor-General would not have passed them. 1365. If the Land Purchase Department had been aware of the existence of these vouchers, would that department have passed the usual forms for giving credit to the imprestee for the £2,000 ? —I can scarcely answer that: it would depend upon the Native Minister himself. I should have drawn the attention of the Minister to them. 1366. When the original vouchers were submitted to the Native Minister for his special approval, as stated in your previous evidence, was the fact of the existence of these vouchers not brought under his notice P —The department was not cognizant of them. 1367. Have you any reason to think that the sub-vouchers you have now produced were ever brought under Mr. Sheehan's notice before payment by the Civil Commissioner ? —Among the telegrams referred to by Major Brown in his telegram to me, is one dated 10th June, 1879, addressed to the Hon. J. Sheehan by Major Brown : " Recommend that Waitara Natives be hosts at Waitara meeting, and that the cost be charged to confiscated land, against margin within which I am keeping payments." The Native Minister replied to Major Brown from Auckland, under date 10th June, " Suggestion re Waitara meeting approved." 1368. Then it would seem that the Government were cognizant of the intention to expend money for the purpose of the Waitara meeting, which was to be charged not to the expenses of tbat meeting, but to the acquisition of the confiscated land ? —I think from these telegrams that the Native Minister must have been aware of it. 1369. Tou said just now that the vouchers signed by the Natives did not disclose the whole of the facts : was not this proceeding one which misrepresented the facts, and was calculated to mislead the department ? —I do not know that. 1370. But on the face of the documents, the vouchers are for money paid to Natives which they never received : does not that actually misrepresent the facts of the case ? —When I was making inquiry at New Plymouth, Mr. liennell, Major Brown's clerk, informed me that Teira was aware, when he signed the receipt for £1,000, that the money was to be expended for store accounts. 1371. That is not the point. What would have been the effect of these vouchers upon the mind of the department, if you had known that the vouchers not only did not disclose the facts, but mis* represented them? —Had I known the facts of the case I would not have passed the vouchers. 1372. Was not the effect of the vouchers to misrepresent as well as not to disclose?—That undoubtedly was the effect.