17

I.—2a.

188. In your remarks you said it was possible for them to substitute one voucher for another I—l1 —I believe it is the easiest thing in the world. 139. And those people who did it in the Department must do it for the purpose of committing fraud? —They must do it for some reason. 190. It can be no other reason but for committing fraud or preventing fraud being detected? —I should think so—it looks like it. 191. You still believe, although Captain Seddon has been examined on oath, and all the different officers of the Departments have denied the statements made by you that ever a cheque had been in existence or a voucher, you are still under the impression that you saw it? —Do you still believe that you are sitting in that chair? Well, that is what convinces me that I saw it, and nothing will ever convince me that 1 did not see it. 192. How was it that you went to Mr. Fisher instead of reporting the matter to your own Department?—l fully believe that if I had tried to report this in the manner you state—through my superior officer—that I should have been landed out in the street, and I should be as I am now —without any chance at all. 193. What was the reason you went to a politician instead of going to some one else?—My only reason was this: that I considered it would be to the advantage of the colony if the matter was ventilated, and I gave the information to Captain Fisher for the public good. 194. If fraud could be carried out in the system, this voucher being pub through, that would not be the only voucher that could be put through and the money obtained, which would be fraud? —I know of my own knowledge that this voucher did go through. If such a thing could go through one office it may be going through other offices, and if a fradulent payment could go through in Christchurch and go through without detection, and can go to such an inquiry and not be detected, such a thing may go on all over the colony, and for this reason it appears to be imperative that the matter should be cleared up. 195. Mr. Alison.] Why are you not satisfied with the inquiry held by the Auditor-General ?— I consider the inquiry held by the Auditor-General did not give us any chance of proving whether the payment existed or not. 196. Did he not make a full and complete inquiry ? —No, sir, the inquiry was not a complete inquiry, and it was from the point of view of giving us an opportunity of proving our statements a perfect farce. 197. Do you mean to say that the inquiry held by the Auditor-General as an inquiry it was proved a farce'?— Yes, as an inquiry it was. As I have already stated the very fact of the AuditorGeneral's impartiality and honesty and implicit belief in human nature which allowed him to imagine that a fraud or any tampering with a voucher would be impossible for any man to do, no matter what issues depended upon the act ; also his unwavering confidence in his books and officers and his system placed us at a great disadvantage. He was a departmental officer, and his officers considered that the Department was for some reason under a slur, so I say»for that reason it should not have been conducted by him at all. 198. I understood you to say that the voucher you saw must have been a fraud ?—No, sir. 199. It has been suggested it has been a fraud ? —Yes. 200. Are you satisfied it was not ? —I am satisfied the idea of a faked voucher or fraudulent voucher is the most utterly ridiculous suggestion possible. 201. Was the voucher signed by Captain Seddon?—lt was signed by " E. J. S. Seddon." 202. You say you discussed it—the four of you ?—No. The particulars in reference to the case were this, that this voucher in question was carried a distance of forty yards by a man named Larcombe, a clerk in the office at Christchurch with twenty-two years' service, a man who was chosen for his special fitness for special work. He brought it out and put it down in front of me and said, " What do you think of this?" I held it in my hands before the window, and must have talked with him about it for five or six minutes, and pointed out that it was made out in Wellington and payable in Christchurch, and also that I did not consider Captain Seddon was competent to perform such service. 203. That voucher being signed by E. J. S. Seddon, would that not go to prove that a cheque had been drawn for that amount? —Yes. 204. Would he sign before he received the cheque ?—The Treasury Department sends the cheque direct to the payee, the payee presents the cheque to the Chief Postmaster, who is supposed to satisfy himself as to the identity of the payee, and then countersigns the cheque. Why lam so certain that it was not a faked voucher is the fact that this voucher had just been placed in Mcßeth's basket with other correspondence for distribution. If it had not been for that fact Larcombe might not have seen it. It also goes to show that if it was a faked voucher Mcßeth countersigned a cheque fora hoaxed voucher, which is impossible. 205. Do you contend, notwithstanding a statement made by Captain Seddon and the evidence which had been adduced to the contrary, that the payment must have been made ?—I contend that the payment must have been made to E. J. S. Seddon. 206. What colour was the voucher ?—Blue-coloured voucher. 207. Could there be any possibility of your having had a misconception with regard to the voucher ?—I would like you to see the voucher. 208. You say there could be no mistake ? —No, there could be no mistake. 209. There was an indication that there had been a mistake made by yourself in assuming that the Sneddon voucher, that you had a wrong conception as to its being signed E. J. S. Seddon —is there any possibility?—No possibility. There are no vouchers with which we are more familiar than the Anderson, or so-called Sneddon voucher. 210. You ask now that an inquiry should be held ?—Yes. 211. What sort of inquiry?—l would suggest an inquiry in which the order of reference will be unrestricted, which will give us free access to all books, papers, and documents likely to contain 3—l. 2a.