15

I.—Jb.

CAPTAIN CLARK, j \

57. Now you claim captain's pay at £1 a day? —Yes. 58. One pound a day and 12s. 6d. detention? —Yes. 59. Were you led in any way to believe that that was a fair remuneration? —I had no correspondence or documents on the matter whatever. 1 considered it was a fair claim, because 1 received that rate previously. 60. As a matter of fact, you still thought that you were continuing and had the status of captain ? —Certainly, or I might then have asked what the status was. I was informed of nothing to lead me to believe that 1 was not kept on in the status I had already been employed in. 61. That is, you would have asked the Government what rate you were to receive?- Yes; if 1 had thought it was to be a different rate from that which 1 had formerly worked under. 62. Had you any communication with General Babington giving you reason to believe thai that was a fair rate of remuneration ?- None. 63. Supposing that you had not accepted the work allotted to you, what would have been the difference in the amount you would receive in gratuities and so forth and the amount offered to you!- -Well, there was only one gratuity it would affect, that is, the gratuity under 601b. Ii would mean that the gratuity would cease when I left the office on the 11th September, 1902, instead of continuing to the 28th February, 1903, if I had not accepted the work for which 1 now claim payment. 64. You do not consider that £4 a week is sufficient payment for the class of work you had t ..> do ? —Certainly not. 65. Was it the work of an expert?--It was. 66. How does the salary compare with that for the work of an ordinary clerk? —1 do not know heir salaries. 67. When you sent in your voucher for £102 13s. 4d., did you do it of your own free will? Well, it was hinted to me that it would be paid, if I may use the term. 68. And that induced you to send in the voucher ? —Yes. 69. You thought you would have no more trouble if you sent in the voucher? —1 did not thins 1 would have " no more trouble," because in putting in the voucher 1 marked it " without prejudice," and it was my intention to claim what I was entitled to on a subsequent date. 70. Still, it reduced the £1 a day and 12s. 6d. detention to £4 a week? —It did. 71. It came, therefore, as a surprise to you when all these deductions were made? —Y T es, a ver, great surprise. 72. And you do not think you are adequately paid by the amount offered to you ?•- -Certainh not. 73. Do you consider that the amount of £276 2s. 6d. was a fair claim to make? —I do, for the services performed. 74. Mr. Taylor.] Have you seen a letter signed by General Babington, dated the 9th July, 1902: "In view of the amount of work connected with returning contingents, and the larg-; number of men shortly returning to the colony, 1 would strongly recommend that an officer be temporarily employed to carry out the necessary work connected with the same. This work has up to the present been carried on by an officer of the headquarters staff, but to the detriment of other business, nor is contingent work up to date. It is most important that matters connected with the contingents should be adjusted without undue delay. The period for which the officer will be required will be three months, and I recommend pay at the rate of £4 per week." Do you remember that? —I remember it being tendered in evidence before the Committee last session. 75. Mr. Hall.] Did the Government at any time intimate to you that your salary would be £4 per week? —At no time. 76. Mr. Taylor.] There is another memorandum dated the 25th April, 1903, from Genera! Babington to the Minister of Defence in which your claim of £277 17s. 6d. is referred to. The last paragraph says, " 1 would further point out that the urgency of completing and issuing dis charges and medals was very considerable, and it was of importance to expedite the matter a.much as possible. Captain Clark was therefore retained to complete this work, as he was th;most capable, if not the only officer available. I regret that Captain Clark, through an oversight, omitted to send in his claims monthly, as he should have done, and as was done in previous similar cases, and which received payment." There is a pencil memorandum on the margin, " Clark was told by the Accountant to send in claim monthly." Is that true? —No. 77. Do you say definitely that no rate of pay was arranged when j-ou were employed?— Absolutely none. 78. Were you under the impression then that you were to receive pay according to you>military rank? —Yes, according to my military rank, £1 12s. 6d. per day, which I have already been paid for twenty-six days. 79. Do you know any returned troopers who went into civil employ very soon after returning r.o the colony, and who have drawn their furlough-pay notwithstanding? —Yes. 80. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] In reference to that last question as to persons wdio went into oivii employment and at the same time drew their furlough-pay: That would be entirely different from the Imperial Government paying the furlough-pay, and at the same time paying the officer for other work, would it not? —The Imperial Government would not know whether a returned trooper went into civil employment, but they would know if an officer were employed and they had to pay him? —I do not see the distinction 81. Do you know of any other officers who have drawn furlough-pay while being similarly employed to yourself ? —I do. - 82. What are their names? —Captain Brown and Captain Stevenson of the Tenth Contingent Colonel Abbot and Major O'Brien of the Ninth Contingent. 83. Those officers, in squaring up the accounts of the contingents, were receiving furloughpay at, the same time that they were receiving pay for their services? —Yes.