Sessional_Paper_1893 — Page 542

538

6. Nothing of the kind, however, occurred. I expressly asked him if he was satisfied with the way in which the Office had been conducted in his absence, and he stated that he was, and did not make a single suggestion of alteration in any respect.

7. It is significant again as corroboratory of this impression, that the only signatures to the balancing of the Rent Roll are those of the Auditor General and his assistant, and that the signature of the Treasurer does not appear.

8. In other years prior to 1887 the signature of the Treasurer appears at the end of the Rent Roll undated, and in another part of the page is the signature of the Auditor General or his Assistant dated with the words " Examined and found correct. The figures are in the handwriting of ALVES, and the inference I shall draw from this would be that while the Treasury prepared the books for examina- tion it was the Audit Office that did the balancing, and in fact that such examina- tion was the balancing.

9. Even the Commission do not distinguish the two when bringing their charges of neglect against the Treasurer. They refer to the late dates at which the Treasurer balanced the Rent Rolls and give various dates in different years as illustrating the delay. But the dates which they give are the dates of the Audit examination and not of Treasury balancing which may have been done at any time previous to the examination, and if there was a separate balancing by the Treasurer, they show only the delay in the Audit Office, as there are no dates to show when the Treasury balance was made.

10. Moreover, as bearing out what I say about the balancing, it is very signi- ficant that the Treasury Ledger was posted by the Audit Office in a building remote from the Treasury, and a copy only of it kept in the Treasury, seeming to point to the idea that it was desired not to leave in the hands of the Treasury the mani- pulation of its own books, but to obtain an independent check such as would be afforded by an examination of the results arrived at by a Rent Roll addition on the part of the Treasury and a Ledger addition on the part of the Audit Office.

11. This is conjecture only and in the absence of a detailed enquiry, I am unable at this distance of time to make a positive assertion; but I think I have a right to complain that without making any enquiry into the system in force in my time, without any knowledge as to how the frauds were committed, and without any reference to the Rent Rolls which are both missing, the Commission should commit themselves to a definite accusation of this kind in a report which purports to be the outcome of a full and complete enquiry, nor do I think it is fair to em- phasize that neglect by referring to instructions which did not come into force until after I had ceased to be Treasurer. They even, moreover, throw in the year 1887, the Rent Roll of which it is proved was balanced and found correct, and which cannot therefore have assisted the frauds.

12. Without therefore denying that I may have been negligent in respect of the years mentioned, I must decline in the existing state of the evidence to accept the charge, and I think that His Excellency the Governor will agree with me that before it can be endorsed I am entitled to a further enquiry.

13. Then, again, assuming for the moment that I have been negligent with respect to the Rent Rolls of 1887, 1888 and 1889, I submit that it is not reason- able to single me out as responsible for the non-balancing of the Rent Roll for the years 1887, 1888 and 1889 when by the practice prevailing for years past, such balancing would have fallen to my successors and not to me.

14. I commenced to be Treasurer in the middle of June 1888, and ceased to be Treasurer in the middle of January 1890, and therefore by the standard set up by the Commission neither the balancing of 1887 nor that of 1889 would have fallen to me, and setting this aside generally the duty being a continuing duty if not done by me would fall with cumulative obligation on my successors who nevertheless are not mentioned in connection with these years.

I should cer- tainly have thought that before the balancing of a later year was taken in hand that of a previous year would be first taken in hand, and in fact that the arrears should be brought up to time.

15. The Commission, however, appear to deal with each year as a complete cycle, and if one year was not completed to pass on to the next and ascertain whether that was completed. In this way I am made to be responsible for three years, while the other Treasurers who succeeded me are only made responsible for

one year.