114

F. M. B. FISHEB.

I.—lla.

38 I am speaking of loans to local bodies?—l do not say loans to local bodies specially. I say in regard to public expenditure, that has been the general practice for many years past, _ 39 I am not talking about general public expenditure. This Committee is inquiring into advances made by the State-guaranteed Advances, and you said it was the general practice to expend money in Opposition districts?—l said " public moneys." ' The Chairman: I must ask Mr. Fisher to answer the question in regard to State-guaranteed Advances. , Witness: I know nothing about the State-guaranteed Advances loans except that an advance was made to Taihape just before the election, and another payment was made to Remuera just before the election. 40. Bight Hon. Sir J. G. Ward.] In connection with the statement you made that it was the general'practice of the Government, is that correct in its application to the State-guaranteed Advances Board to loans to local bodies?—l cannot say about the State-guaranteed Advances Board, because I have no knowdedge of any payments made. 41. Therefore when you made that statement you did not intend it to apply to the Stateguaranteed Advances Board or the Loans to Local Bodies Board? —No. 42. So that evidence is no value from our point of view- so far as the inquiry is concerned? — Not the slightest, 43. You had no justification for making the statement that a loan to a borough in my electorate was refused because my seat was a safe one? —Did I say that? 44. You stated in the House so, because I dealt with it at the time? —The only reason that would prompt me to make that interjection is that it has been the general practice of the Government to spend money where they wanted support. Your having a safe seat, naturally that is how I looked at it. 45. You deny that the answer that you gave has any application to what was done by the State-guaranteed Advances Board? —As I-said in Hansard, 1 was only expressing my own opinion upon the point. 46. Without any facts about the case? —There wore two specific facts, the Remuera case and the Taihape case. 47. Do you suggest that had any application to my electorate? —Not in the slightest. 48. Then the interjection had no bearing in point of fact?-Yes, 1 think it had. It was not based on a fact, but a plain inference from my point of view. 49. In regard to my electorate? —In regard to any electorate. 50. But in regard to my electorate the interjection you made was that a loan was not advanced because it was a safe seat? —You say it was made, but I do not know whether that interjection was made. I should like to see it before I acknowledged it. 51. Well, will you deny that you said it?—No; but L am not going to be put in the position of answering words without knowing the words and without knowing exactly what I was dealing with. 52. I am-not suggesting something you did not say, but I know you said it, and I only wanted to know whether you had any facts to justify the statement as far as the State-guaranteed Advances were concerned ? —I can only repeat that if I made the interjection, and there seems to be no doubt I did, that having made it, I was prompted by the fact that it the usual practice of the Government to spend money in districts where the Government wanted votes. 53. You are quite sure the interjection was not made facetiously?— No. I have always thought that the Liberal party which was in power for twenty-one years had always bought votes all over the country. 54. Then you think that any other member whose district is refused a loan is in the same position? —Yes, exactly. 55. And that does not apply, and has no application to the State-guaranteed Advances Board? —Not the slightest. John George Findlay further examined. (No. 20.) 1. Right Hon. Sir J. 67. Ward.] Sir John, a statement was made by a Mr. Wilson, an engineer acting for the Remuera Road Board, that a Mr. Cawkwell, who was Chairman of the Board, had informed him or had in conversation with Mr. Cawkwell elicited a statement to the effect that you were providing payment for a number of men who were working for the Remuera Road Board who were, given a holiday. This is the evidence given on oath by Mr. H. M. Wilson on the 18th of this month : " Did Mr. Cawkwell report the matter to you ? —Yes, he came down after he had been on the mountain, and he came into my office and said, ' I hope you won't be cross with what I have done.' I said, ' What is it ? ' He said, ' I have given the men a holiday on the mountain. I addressed them this morning ;itis a wet day and I gave them a holiday on pay.' I said, ' I don't like that, it has to be charged to the work. Who is going to pay for the extra expenditure ?' and he said, ' I will see it is paid all right. It will be all right—it won't be charged to the Board.' He said it would not be charged to the Board ? —Yes. Did he say who would pay for it ?—:lt may have been in a joking way, but he said Sir John Findlay would pay for it." Now, is there any truth in the alleged suggestion there that you were going to pay those men ?—Absolutely none. I knew nothing whatever of these happenings until they were dragged out before this inquiry. Then for the first time I knew of them. So little did I know of it that I was not aware of the reference Mr. Allen made when I was here last. That was the first occasion there was any suggestion that I had anything to do with these workmen on the Remuera Works ; and I desire to say here, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee has done me a very great injustice—l do not say intentionally, but has done me a very great injustice, which would never be suffered in any Court of justice. I was asked when last here in a vague and entirely unintelligible way about the payment of some men. My interrogator