L—6B

4

Statement or the Financial Statement was based, were altered, or, that the figures being altered, the Statement itself was not altered. I hope the day will not come when such a thing is possible. 55. At all events, on the 27th September (Hansard, page 433), 1892, there is nothing said beyond laying the Statement on the table ?—No. 56. That is the Statement to which you allude ? —Yes. 57. And that is the one in which you say the figures were altered?—ln this the last figures were altered; they are different in this Statement to what they are in the records of the House laid on the table. 58. But this agrees with the Statement that was circulated in the Appendix? —Yes; so far as I know. 59. But it does not agree with the one laid upon the table of the House ?—No. 60. Now, will you tell the Committee which of the Appendices had been altered. You said the Appendix, as well as the Statement, had been altered. Will you point it out to the Committee? —I do not know whether I made myself clear, but I said the Public Works Statement in the Appendix. 61. You mean the Public Works Statement in the Appendices of the House?— Yes; not the tables. 62. Do the tables show in the same Public Works Statement the correct figures ? —I have not been into those figures. It is quite possible they do. But my contention is that the record which went to the public, who did not get the tables, and who did not study them if they had them, was such as was misleading. 63. Now, does not the first paragraph in the Public Works Statement contain the correct figures?— They do not appear, as far as I know. 64. Oh, yes, they do ? —They do not appear in such a way as to bear out the statement that " the expenditure had been less in the past year than it had been for years past." That is the statement on the first page. 65. You will not say it does not show the correct figures in the uncorrected copy?— Yes; they do-not appear in such a way as to enable any ordinary reader to see whether they bore out the statement. 66. Did you, Mr. Bolleston, read the Financial Statement of last year?— Yes. 67. Did not that Financial Statement give the expenditure on public works as £391,501 ?—I could not say from memory, but I have no doubt it did, if you say so. But that does not bear upon this question. If I may supplement my answer—if it did show the figures, it only showed this Statement was incorrect. 68. Were you present as soon as we went into Committee on the Public Works Statement ? — I really do not recollect. I have very little doubt I was. lam generally in the House. 69. Would you be prepared to say I did not make this statement: " that I regretted having been caught napping when the motion was put, as there were certain statements I wished to make in reply—in correction." They did not put it in Hansard. It was a personal explanation I made. I expressed my regret that I had been caught napping and that I wished to make a correction ?—ls that in Hansard ? 70. It is not in Hansard ; but I ask you, were you present ?—I was present, I believe. 71. The Chairman : It was very late, I think, in the morning. 72. Hon. Mr. Seddon.] Were you there? —It is clear I was there. I moved to report progress, and I see my name in the division list. It was seven o'clock in the morning when we adjourned. It is clear I was there. There was division after division. 73. Turn to page 701 and you will see the concluding words of Mr. Buick, " I hope that the Minister in his reply will take an opportunity of dealing with this question " ?—Which question was that? 74. The Public Works Statement ?—He is dealing with some bridge or other, and he hopes you will take an opportunity of dealing with this question. 75. It means reply to the debate ? —Of course, I could not say what Mr. Buick meant, but he is speaking of a bridge. 76. What is the inference there?— The inference is he hoped he would get the Awatere Bridge. 77. And he asked me to reply whether I would give it or not. Has not the word " reply " there any reference to the debate then proceeding ?—I presume it does. Beally I cannot interpret it as a matter of common-sense but as referring to the bridge. 78. As a matter of fact, what do you read next ?—lf you will tell me where to read. 79. Page 701; after Mr. Buick finished ?—The motion was agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply. 80. Is there not something unusual, do you think, there ? Would you not consider it unusual in the face of the debate preceding, for the Minister in charge not to reply ?—I think it was a most unusual thing that a Minister should have a charge of that kind brought against him, which he was presumably conscious of, and that he should not have replied. That is the gravamen of my statement, that you did not take the opportunity. 81. Then, the debate was commenced by Mr. Mitchelson. Turn to page 665 for Mr. Mitchelson ; page 668 Mr. Fish spoke; page 674 Sir John Hall spoke. Does Sir John Hall go into this question ? —I do not know, I will read if the Committee wish. 82. Mr. Bruce spoke page 677, and Mr. G. F. Eichardson at page 682. I ask you to follow me in his speech. He says, "In the Financial Statement, the expenditure of the Loan Fund is given for the year as £391,000 odd, but the Minister for Public Works in his paragraph says : ' I give the following figures which represent the total expenditure under the Public Works Fund during each of the years mentioned. . . . Eesults have proved, however, that fair progress has been made with our necessary reproductive public works, and yet the expenditure thereon has been less during the past year than it has been for years past.' " He then quotes the figures. I