I,—7a

86

The Chairman : They were an eighteen-shilling tent invoiced by the firm at £1 ss. Hon. the Premier : I see by the examination of the papers in reference to the dates that we are both right. Mr. Skerrett: I have only one further observation to make. The Committee must be aware that this inquiry has caused a great deal of discussion in trade circles. I think there is no objection to my saying that it has been used by trade rivals to the disadvantage of my clients. If I have succeeded, in proving to the Committee that there is no justification for the imputation of fraud against my clients, then I think their good name should be cleared from such imputation. The very care with which the Committee have investigated this matter has been made a weapon of attack by the trade rivals of this firm. Mr. T. Thompson : I understand you to ask the Committee to believe that Jenkins was actuated by a desire to get a "pull" over his employers by making these entries himself. How do you explain the fact that the vouchers challenge so completely that intention ? Mr. Skerrett : They never challenged anything until after Jenkins's dismissal. Mr. T. Thompson : Was it not equivalent to a challenge that these deductions should have been made ? Mr. Skerrett: You will see that this is a very large and varied schedule ; that in such contracts disputes constantly arise in respect to the description of the items—that is, whether a particular item or items come under the schedule rates or not. Had these vouchers been returned before Jenkins was dismissed what you say would be unanswerable, but no voucher was returned. Hon. the Premier: It would be the company's place to try (whether they were outside the contract), and the official's place to deny. Mr. Skerrett: When an item did not come within the contract it was their business to make as much of it as they could. An Hon. Member: You would not argue that they should charge a price to the Government beyond that which they charge other customers. Mr. Montgomery : It is not a question of price here, but rather a question of weight. Mr. Skerrett: The Committee said that they were satisfied as to all deductions, except as to overcharges in weights and as to tents, and stopped me from explaining other items. I would remind the Committee that, although there has been an overpayment of £4, Mr. MacNeil shows in his evidence that against that there is an off-set to a greater amount, and he produced a list in respect to which it is admitted that the amount they claim exceeds the amount overpaid. Tuesday, 15th October, 1895.—(H0n. Mr. Larnach, Chairman). Mr. Menteath : I trust that, if I have been the means of causing some little delay on the last occasion that the Committee met, I shall make up for it on the present occasion by the opportunity which has been afforded me by the adjournment to condense the remarks I have to make upon the evidence that has been adduced. I will make brevity my first object. I submit that the results of the case may be summarised under four heads—(l.) That the officers of the Public Works Department (so it appears to me) have been acquitted by the evidence of any suspicion of fraudulent complicity with any outsiders in the discharge of their duties. (2.) That the system of check pursued by the central office of the Public Works Department seems to be an efficient check. At all events, that is the effect that the evidence makes on my mind—that it is of an efficient character. On the other hand, there seems to be no efficient check, or no sufficient check, on outside works carried on by the Public Works Department; and now as regards minor departments, such as the Survey, the Police, and some others. In these minor departments mistakes have been revealed which have gone on unchecked to a considerable extent. On these points I do not think that my learned friend would join issue with me. The Chairman : I would remind you that the Eailway Department has been referred to a good deal in the course of this inquiry. Mr. Menteath: I omitted to mention the Eailways. There the check appears to be very efficient. The Chairman : And the Marine. Mr. Menteath : Yes; the Marine. But Ido not know whether the check in the Marine is to be attributed to the system adopted or to the officers. I will only say generally that in some of the other branches the check seems to be very inefficient indeed. There are two other results which have been elicited by this inquiry, and to this I have more especially to address myself. I have to submit to the Committee that the evidence taken during this inquiry clearly establishes that a system of overcharge has been pursued by the firm of Briscoe, MacNeil, and Co. in the performance of their contract with the Government, and that that system has been the result of deliberate intention. I am, of course, only speaking of the Wellington branch. What I say is that, from the evidence which has been adduced, it would appear that there was a deliberate intention to increase the profits of the contract by taking advantage of the inefficient system of check which existed on the part of the purchasers in those outside works and the minor departments to which I have referred. Further, I have to submit that, in drawing the attention of the officers of the Public Works Department to this organized system of overcharge on the part of Briscoe, MacNeil, and Co., my client, Mr. Jenkins, is deserving of recognition, and deserving also of indemnity against the loss of time he has suffered, and the expense to which he has been put in the discharge of a public duty. And I submit, further, that the sole question which, in considering the question of costs, the Committee has to consider is whether he has not done a public service. His motives, I submit, have nothing to do with the decision of the Committee. He may have acted from all sorts of motives; it may have been a conscientious motive, but that is between himself and his own conscience. I contend that the sole question is whether he is not entitled to indemnify for having performed a