8.—17.

Valuation Department, Wellington, 25th June, 1902. Memorandum for the Controller and Auditor-General. The statement required by section 19 of "The Government Valuation of Land Act, 1896," is a statement of amounts received and expended under the Act, and not a statement of amounts received into and paid out' of the Public Account. A fee or contribution paid by a local authority on the 31st March is received on that date, and must be accounted for in a statement made in accordance with the provisions of the section referred to, whether it is paid into the Public Account or not. I would suggest that the correct course would be for the Audit Department to note the difference between the figures in the statements of the Treasury and Valuation Departments in a memo., explaining how such difference arises. John MoGowan, Valuer- General.

The Valuer-General. The Audit Office regrets that it is unable to agree with the Valuer-General in the opinion which he is understood to hold that "received into and expended" does not mean "received into and expended out of the Public Account," and that the Audit Office must accordingly object to any other statement of the moneys received and expended, as not being the statement required by the Act. J. K. Warburton, 27th June, 1902. Controller and Auditor-General.

Valuation Department, Wellington, Ist July, 1902. Memorandum for the Controller and Auditor-Geneeal. I am sorry to say that I cannot submit a statement of receipts and expenditure which, does not include the whole of the receipts brought to account during the year, as required by the statute, and as has been done since the Act was passed. John McGowan, Valuer-General.

It is regretted that the Valuer-General should thus leave the Audit no alternative but to return, uncertified, the statement which he has submitted; for that statement, as it is not, in the judgment of the Audit Office, the statutory statement of moneys received and expended under section 19 of the Act, cannot be certified by the Audit Office. J. K. Warburton, Ist July, 1902. Controllor and Auditor-General.

The Solicitor-General. Will you please advise on the position ? John McGowan, 3rd July, 1902. Valuer-General. Reference approved.—C. H. M., 3/7/02.

In my opinion the statement of accounts required by section 19 should include all moneys received up to the close of the year, whether they have been actually paid into the Public Account or not. It is true that under section 18 all moneys received are to be paid into the Public Account; but this may take time, and if moneys received but not paid into the Public Account were excluded from the statement, the true position would not be disclosed, nor would section 19 be complied with. Fred. Fitchett,

3rd July, 1902. Solicitor-General. The Controller and Auditor-General. I refer the opinion of the Solicitor-General for your information. Perhaps you will now be able to pass the accounts. John McGowan, 7tb July, 1902. Valuer-General.

The Controller and Auditor-General is very sorry that the judgment of the Audit Office in this matter should occasion so much trouble, and that a statement of the moneys received into and expended out of the Public Account is not submitted for audit. The account of the moneys received and expended under the Act is one of the Public Accounts of Revenue and Expenditure ; and the Treasury Regulations, having the force of law, provide that— "3. In the Public Accounts the revenue of any financial year is the money received " into the Public Account at the bank at Wellington within the year, and the expendi- " ture is the money paid at the Treasury within the year." The judgment of the Audit Office was accordingly that none but a statement of the money received into the Public Account at the bank at Wellington within the year will comply with the requirements of section 19 of the Act. J. K. Warburton, 7th July, 1902. Controller and Auditor-General.

Hon. C. H. Mills. I regret having to send forward the accounts of the Valuation Department without the customary certificate from the Audit Office. The correspondence which I attach explains the attitude taken up by that office, which I may mention is entirely in conflict with the invariable practice of the past. It is impossible to disclose .the true financial position without including balance in hand, and moneys received and accounted for by the Post Office, and yet the Audit Office refuses to allow them to appear.

3