A.—4,

26

various heads of appropriation in tlic Appropriation Act, and under the various heads places the several amounts. When asked to certify a warrant, he turns to his book to see whether there has been an appropriation, and whether the amount which is sought to be expended is or is not in excess of the actual amount appropriated, or the balance of it. If he finds that the warrant would not exceed the amount, he certifies to it without any knowledge whatever of whether the service has been performed or not. What would be the object of the subsequent audit of accounts if he had in the beginning to ascertain that the money had been earned ? There is no doubt that a system which would ascertain the absolute performance of services to the satisfaction of the Auditor might be best, but the question is, whether it is legally necessary. I submit that all the Auditor has to do is to ascertain whether the funds are there, just as the officer of a Bank looks at his ledger to see if the customer has the money to his credit when he presents his cheque, initials the cheque if the money is there, and then it is cashed. If the duty of ascertaining that the money has been earned is thrown upon the Auditor, he will have the duty of pre-auditing, and all he will have to do afterwards is to ascertain that so much money had been handed to the Treasurer, so much expended, and that the balance was correct. Arney, C. J.—lt appeared to me that the words "legally available " went further, and that the Auditor had to see that there were funds " legally available " to meet the service, otherwise the Executive Government might borrow the money on any terms they chose. Richmond, J.—Do the Appropriation Acts passed since the Public Eevenues Act came into force contain the clause requiring payments to be made only on warrants by the Governor ? That clause was included in Appropriation Acts passed prior to the passifig of the Public Revenues Act, and seems clearly to mean that the Governor's warrant was necessary for the payment to specific persons, and not the issue of large sums of money to individuals, to be afterwards distributed by them. Without some such provision it is plain that you may put the whole Appropriation Act into one warrant, and no further warrant is necessary. That is your contention. Mr. Travers.—That is so; and it is the duty of the Treasurer to see that the moneys are paid to the persons who have earned them. The Provincial Treasurer is the officer who draws the cheques, and his office is one contemplated by the Constitution Act itself. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Superintendent to draw cheques, but simply to give the Treasurer authority to do so. Your Honor suggests that the warrant should on the face of it show that the money has been earned ; but the Auditor has to assume that, and ascertain that sufficient money has been appropriated to meet the service. Johnston, J. —That is very different from the ordinary practice of Provincial Governments. Mr. Travers. — Non constat that it is therefore illegal. Attention has been called to the introduction of certain clauses in the Appropriation Acts of the General Assembly, requiring the Governor's warrant before the issue of moneys for the payment of specific services. The 54th section of the Constitution Act provides for the appropriation and issue of moneys by the General Assembly and Government, and says that no part of Her Majesty's revenue shall be issued " except in pursuance of warrants under the hand of the Governor." If that section implied what is stated in the Appropriation Acts of the General Assembly, it would be unnecessary to insert the clauses in those Acts ; but I submit that the clauses inserted in those Acts are something superadded to the provisions of the Constitution Act. They require a certain course to be pursued which apparently in the mind of the Legislature was not provided for by the terms of the Constitution Act. Johnston, J.—ls it not rather that the clauses are inserted in pursuance of section 54 of the Constitution Act ? Mr. Travers.—No, they add something to it. Section 54 is at large, and refers generally to appropriations. Then come the clauses of the Appropriation Acts which require specific warrants. Johnston, J.—lt does not follow that the Legislature might not have taken this construction of the Constitution Act, amplifying it in the Appropriation Acts. Mr. Travers.—The Court will have to determine the construction of the Constitution Act without looking at those Appropriation Acts. These particular provisions in the Appropriation Acts are not inserted for the purpose of construing the terms of the Constitution Act. They require the warrants to be specific in regard to times, to persons, and to other matters, but the warrants mentioned in the Constitution Act are warrants at large. Johnston, J.—Section 54 of the Constitution Act says issue to the Treasurer, but section 25 does not say to anybody. Mr. Travers.—True ; but section 25 of the Constitution Act, plus the Wellington Executive Government Act, makes it payable to the Provincial Treasurer. I submit that the law only requires that there should be a warrant to the Provincial Treasurer, authorizing him to expend the moneys appropriated in the manner contemplated by the Appropriation Act, leaving the Treasurer responsible for the due application of those moneys. The warrant is in reality the protection of the Treasurer. That is the document under which alone he can properly deal with the funds at his command. If the Auditor is called upon to ascertain in the 4irst instance whether there is actually sufficient money in the Bank to meet the particular warrant, the administration of the Government must, to a certain extent, be at a standstill. There may be funds potentially available which are not actually in the Bank at the moment. Is it to be said that if, in the ordinary course of administration, the Provincial Government have to pay a sum of ,£5,000, and on the warrant being presented to the Auditor for certificate he finds that there are