I.—7b

32

178. Is it usual for sheets of paper with figures pencilled upon them, and sent by no one, to be used and placed before Parliament and appear upon the records of the colony ? It is signed by no one and purports to be a number of figures and names of railways, and that appears in the Audit papers and comes before Parliament subsequently. Do you think that is the proper thing?—l do not see anything improper in it. It would be taken for what it is worth. 179. Can you explain what it means ? —No. 180. And yet it appears in a report to Parliament by the Auditor-General ?—I should think it referred to the available balances under these votes. 181. It does not say so ? —-No. 182. And it is signed by no one ?—No. 183. Do you think, as an officer of the Audit Office, that such figures and papers as appear here should become part of the records and be sent to Parliament ?—I did not know that they had come here. They do not appear to be of any use. 184. What are they there for?— They are all arising out of this question. 185. How, do you think ?—Because all the records lead up to that conclusion. If the minutes were written about the difficulty the Railway Department had got into they would be relevant. 186. Then, if some clerk wanted to cause trouble in the Treasury, all he has to do is to get such figures and let the Audit Office get hold of them? —I do not think any clerk would dare to do such a thing. There are officers of the Public Works Department here, and if the Committee would like to call them it could get information on the matter. 187. But these figures are not signed by any one; they are the figures of the clerks. Do you think that is a proper course for the Auditor-General to take—to bring these figures before Parliament in this shape ? —Do you think Mr. FitzGerald would have done so ? —Whatever the AuditorGeneral has thought proper to do in reporting to Parliament I concur in. 188. You say you do not know where these figures came from, and yet you say you concur with him in putting such a thing on record ?—Yes. 189. In the next paper, under the head of "Unauthorised," I see "Balance available," "Further sums on transfer," and " Railways want £50,000, available £29,000, short £21,000." They are not signed by anybody ?—Not here on this paper. 190. You were Secretary to the Treasury for some time, and I suppose you sometimes made use of slips of paper to figure out things for yourself ?—Yes. 191. And being for your own information, if anything of that kind had been used publicly as it is here, would you consider that in accordance with the correct order of things, and the proper conduct of business—would it be fair to you ?—lf I had made any memoranda of importance on a separate slip I would not attach it to the records. 192. You would destroy it ?—lt would depend upon what it was. 193. Would you regard it as private matter? —Certainly. 194. And suppose some one got hold of it ?—No one would get possession of my private memoranda. 195. Where did this come from ?—I believe the information contained in the report was obtained from the record —T. 98/369. Any memoranda attached to the record formed part of the record. 196. Where did you get that from ? —I say that the information following T. 98/369, down as far as the word " Railway," near the foot of the eleventh page, was taken from that record. The information commencing with " Copy A " and ending with " Copy D " was taken from the Treasury Record T. 98/369. 197. Then you do not know where it came from now ? —I assume from the fact that that record is quoted, that the information came from the record. 198. Would you consider a record complete that was signed by no one ? If papers were there signed by no one, would you call that a proper transaction and part of a record ?—lf the papers were attached to the record they would form part of the record. 199. Turn to page 11—" Railways want £50,000, available £29,000." Under ordinary circumstances, looking at your position as Secretary to the Treasury at one time, and your large official experience, does not that appear to be simply a hurried memorandum ? No explanation appears on the face of it to guide any one except the person who made it; it is sent to no one, and is directed to no one as it appears there. Say you found pencilled marks on some paper such as that, " Railways want £50,000, available £29,000," would you say that was intended to form part of the permanent records of the colony ?—As a fact it did. I said just now that anything attached to a record formed part of the record itself. 200. If pencil marks are made by clerks or others in the Audit Department, do you take them as part of a record ?—Yes, anything appearing on a record is part of a record. 201. You have been in the habit of doing that—taking memorandums of clerks not signed by anybody as being part of a record ?—Certainly not. 202. Do you know of a case under the previous Controller and Auditor-General where any matter reported to Parliament was sent in duplicate ?—I do not remember any such case. 203. If this report was sent in in duplicate, it is a new departure ? —I do not remember any such case. 204. Did you ever know of a case since you have been connected with the Audit Office where any member of Parliament knew of a document of this character going to the Speaker before the Speaker knew it ?—I do not know of any such case. 205. Would you consider it a proper thing to remove from a file a pencilled memorandum and attach it to another?—ln answer to an abstract question I should say it would be an improper thing to do. 206. That is, if a file of papers came from one department to another, and there were pencilled marks on a paper, and they were removed from that paper to another, that would be an improper