L— 7a

82

deficiencies—where there were deficiencies—during the period of his employment. Apart from his evidence there is intrinsic evidence that that is so. You will see by the small amounts that the statement goes into detail, such as alleged overcharges of 6d., Bd., fd., 9d., 10d., 25., 3d., &c, showing that the notes are complete and exhaustive. Mr. Menteath : You will find that there are other items included in that statement. Mr. Skerrett: This statement of his I believe contains all the charges; there was an item " blacklead," but that was only 6d. The Chairman : He notices items as overcharges which are in reality undercharges. Mr. Skerrett : In Mr. Blow's evidence reference is made to alleged overcharges which are in reality undercharges (items 37 and 52); then there are items, such as 45, where lcwt. is undercharged, but is included in Jenkins's list as an item of overcharge. [Vide notes of evidence, page 36, question 91.] Jenkins was asked a question by Mr. Montgomery on the same branch of the subject. I will read to you the answer he makes to Mr. Montgomery's question. [Vide notes of evidence, page 24, question 252.] I have prepared a list which includes every item upon which overcharge is alleged by Jenkins. What better evidence can be furnished than a complete list which is absolutely correct? Let us see how figures shown by this list stand. Jenkins's total amount of overcharges is put down at £23 2s. ; from that deduct £5 7s. 3fd. Undercharges and overcharges, of which I hand in a list, leaving a balance of alleged overcharges of £17 16s. 6|d. The Chairman : He at first made it £49 odd ? Mr. Skerrett: Yes ; but he gave evidence only to the amount of £23. The Public Works' account—arrived at by an independent investigation and check—pretty well agrees with that, and gives £18 14s. 7d. From this amount you must deduct £3 19s. 4d. (£1 12s. 7d., not errors of weight or involved in the charges, and an admitted undercharge of £2 6s. 9d.), leaving a net balance of £14 15s. 3d., to which you have to add items in Jenkins's statement, and not in the Public Works' statement, £3 Is. sd.—leaving the balance of overcharge at £17 16s. Bd., according to the Public Works' independent investigation ; and £17 16s. 6Jd. according to Jenkins's evidence. Now, I say that when you consider the magnitude of this contract, its variety of detail, such a margin of error is a mere bagatelle. The Chairman: Is that after all deductions are made ? Mr. Skerrett: Yes; and that £17 16s. 6d. is made up of £8 Bs., an item of glass, which has to be deducted, being an obvious clerical error, which would have been discovered by the Public Works Department, and has been discovered by the Public Works Department, so that the total is reduced to £9, and if you take off from that one, the largest remaining item, the discrepancy is reduced to two or three pounds. The sash-cord was the only large item, so that the discrepancies are reduced to a very small sum. The Hon. the Premier: I understood you to say that these discrepancies occurred with a previous contractor. Mr. Skerrett: I did not mean to imply that with any contractor there was a deliberate system of overcharging the Government. Mr. T. Thompson : I understand you to say that it was nothing more than usual in the department. That would lead one to suppose the officials were negligent in the performance of their duties. Mr. Skerrett: What I desired to say was this: that in a contract of this magnitude and enormous detail, where you would find no larger discrepancies, from month to month, between the contractor's and the Government accounts, you would not be justified in attributing such discrepancies to anything but error. As to the character of the alterations, that is quite another matter. In this contract you see that the total amount of the discrepancies is £17 ; that from that you have to deduct £8 Bs. in favour of my clients, which must be admitted to be a mere clerical error and not a fraudulent overcharge. It is to be noted that the net amount actually overpaid is but £4, against which Mr. MacNeil has told you, and it is not really denied, he has an off-set to a greater amount for improper deductions made. Indeed, most of the alleged overcharges have been disproved, and some that were alleged to be overcharges have proved to be undercharges. There is the item lead piping, which was disproved by Mr. Gellatly. We have been able to show that Burt's invoice was a mistake of Burt's. Mr. Menteath: That is Mr. Gellatly's evidence. There is other evidence Mr. Skerrett: Now lead piping is of a standard weight. The weight was 201b. That is whatit ought to be, and what it was ; but Burt's invoice was only received after the weight had gone in, The next is item 29, which was correctly rendered. Now I desire to call the attention of the Committee to new matter, but it illustrates what is not perhaps well understood, and that is, that without any fraud or evil practice you will find discrepancies in weight in all large contracts for the supply of goods of this description. I hold in my hand a document received from the Eailway Department showing one bar and a half steel charged 9cwt. 2qr. 181b. It is reduced by the department, after actual test, to 9cwt. and 251b., making a difference of nearly a quarter, and yet I produce the invoice of Mills and Co., debiting us with the same amount of iron at 9cwt. 2qr. 181b. Mr. Menteath : If my learned friend wishes to give evidence in this case, I submit he should go into the box and be cross-examined. Mr. Skerrett: It is a mere illustration of what is the practice, and it is for the purpose of illustration that I use it; to show that on entries of this kind you must not impute dishonest motives. Hon. the Premier : The question is, whether that is to be entered in the addressThe Chairman: I think that new matter has no right to be put in evidence, but I have ho doubt, Mr. Skerrett, you have done sufficient for your purpose.