I.—7a

12

conflict of one of the departments of the State with the Audit Office' is the conflict of the Government with the Audit Office." By that you brought in the Treasury ? —Yes. 95. Will you say if this was nine months before the Treasury matter ? —lf you look at the letter I was quoting you will see it was the 29th January, 1897. [See page 2, 8.-20, Sess. 11., 1897.] 96. But this is December, 1896?— That is another point altogether. That was in illustration. 97. Will you say that this matter had not been the subject of communication by you with the Minister before Mr. Cadman wrote to you on that date ?—Not to my knowledge, and I may say I believe not. 98. It had not been before the Treasury ?—lt may have been a little before, in conversation. 99. This is the 30th December, 1896; Mr. Cadman's letter is the Ist November, 1897 ?—ln that letter he said if the matter had been brought before him in the first instance he would probably have asked the Warden to do what I desired without raising the legal aspect of the case. Then I said, in page 7 of 8.-20, Sess. 11., 1897, in a postscript to the Under-Secretary of the Mines Department, " If it should, as I fear from looking through the papers it may, have happened that the Minister had not seen them I would ask you to submit them to him at the earliest possible moment, for the position now is one which the Government may think it expedient to consider." And after that came Mr. Cadman's letter, in which he implies that he had not seen the papers before. 100. Was it not your contention that the abstract had'to be signed by the Warden ? That was your construction of the clause of the Act ? —The fact is I never gave it any consideration. I did not contend for a moment that the Warden ought to sign it. Eight through these papers it will be seen that my argument was that if he could not see his way to sign a document which it was his duty to cause to be furnished under the statute he could comply with the Audit requirement on his department by signing an independent statement. 101. You have never contended that the Warden should sign this abstract?— The whole question with me is compliance with an Audit requirement. This is the department I first sent an Audit requirement to. 102. Do you consider the law entitles the Warden to sign these abstracts under section 76? —I have allowed to the department every objection that the Warden can urge, and said that if he does not see his way to sign under his statutory duty he need not sign, and that if the department will comply with the requirement of the Audit in any way I will be satisfied. 103. Does the law require that to be done ? —lt is not expressly declared that it has to be done. Ido not think that such an express declaration could be possible in this matter. I must exercise my discretion. It must lie with me—in my judgment —to say what is necessary for a proper audit. If it comes to be a question whether I am wrong it is a question whether I ought to be there. 104. But if the law does not require it to be done ? —Then it lies in the discretion of the Minister, and if he does not do what I think he ought to do I am not satisfied with the accounts, and I report so to Parliament. 105. You reported that to Parliament, did you not ?—Yes. 106. You did not say that the Minister had been a party to a violation of the law, but he would not administer what you wanted him to administer ?—I reported that I could not get satisfaction of an Audit requirement in a Warden's department, and that there was a failure of the Mines Department to comply with a requisition for a certified statement of the amounts collectible as gold revenue. It was complied with by every Warden in the colony but one. 107. And because his interpretation of the Act was different from yours, and because of his inability, on account of other duties which he pointed out prevented him, you reported the matter to the Mines Department ?—I reported it because a requirement I considered necessary had not been satisfied. I made the requirement because I considered it necessary. 108. Do you consider you are within your functions, the Minister and the law being against you, in reporting this to Parliament ?—My answer is that it lies in the discretion of the Minister to comply, and he is responsible for refusing. 109. Under what powers given by the Public Eevenues Act do you consider you are empowered to do that ? —I do not consider the Public Eevenues Act if I think it is required. 110. Then, you can go outside the Public Eevenues Act?—No; if lean act consistently with the law. 111. I want to know under what law you reported the Minister of the Mines Department?— Because I objected to the accounts. I could not verify the accounts of revenue received By Eeceivers of Gold Eevenue who collected revenues under titles issued by Mr. Warden Stratford. 112. Id any case, you consider you have a discretion in reporting the Administration to Parliament because it fails to comply with a requisition you make, whether it is within the law or not ? —If I concluded that I made a requirement which the law prohibited I should not make a report to Parliament; I should withdraw my requirement. 113. Were you not aware that the law supported the position taken up by Mr. Stratford?—l might have one of my clerks, if I ordered him to do a thing, decline to do it unless I could show him a statute. 114. You make a law to suit yourself, then, notwithstanding it is outside the law ?—I do not think I could carry on my office if I wanted a direction from the [statute for every movement I take. 115. But this was clearly within the law in section 76 of the Mining Act?—l have said throughout, explained to the department, and I say now, that if the Warden considered that he could not in the performance of his statutory duty sign the abstract which it was his statutory duty to cause to be furnished to the Minister, then he could send in a second independent statement, if you may call it so —that is superfluous, so far as the statute is concerned,