GENERAL BABINGTON.]

11

I.—lc.

able warrants my not approving for the period he alleges he was employed in excess of that ap* proved by the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones, Acting Defence Minister." That was my minute when the two vouchers I have shown you came in. Here is a letter which I sent the Commandant on the 10th July : " I desire you to ascertain how the Acting-Defence Minister's authority has been kept from me, and payment for large sums of money in excess of the authority has been recommended. Kindly let me have all the papers when giving result of your inquiries." That is the letter that I asked you about, General ?—Yes. This was my reply : " The authority referred to in your minute of the 10th instant appears to have been filed with Captain M'Gee's papers, to whom the temporary appointment was offered. Although application for salary for Captain Clark was forwarded and recommended, this was not claimed for under Ministerial authority, but was submitted for your approval." 70. I wish to make it clear that when I asked to know the Ministerial authority, this was what was given—that it was originally intended for Captain McGee to do the work. This is the minute that I put upon that letter from the Commandant: " What I complain of is that I was recommended to pay Captain Clark a large sum of money in excess of what the Acting-Defence Minister had authorised." When asked for the Ministerial authority, that letter of the General's, with the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones's approval indorsed on it, was sent along to me. Beyond that authority of the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones's there was no authority to have this work done, was there, General ?—No. 71. It is not usual to incur liabilities without the approval of Ministers ?—No, certainly not. 72. Would Major Smith be authorised to put a person on in the office without the authority of the Minister?— No. 73. Or without your authority ? —No. 74. Do you think it would be right to put a person on to perform a duty without telling him what he was to receive as remuneration ?—No, Ido not think so. Ido not think he would accept it without asking. 75. It would be a very unusual thing for a person to go into an office and not know what he was to get ?—Yes. 76. Mr. B. McKenzie.] You stated in reply to Mr. Wood that the Under-Secretary ought to have reported if vouchers were not sent in monthly ?—Well, it would be the usual course. 77. To whom should he have reported?—He communicates direct with me. 78. He should have reported direct to you ? —That would have been the usual course, if the Treasury Regulation is that vouchers should be sent in monthly, which I am informed is the case. 79. So that unless you received that report you would not know whether Captain Clark was really employed or not ?—I should know whether he was employed, but that report would be the only notification I should have that the vouchers were not being forwarded monthly. 80. You also stated that it was very unusual for any one to be employed in the office without knowing what he was to reserve. Do you think Captain Clark was informed as to what remuneration he was to receive ?—I never told him. That is all I can say. 81. Do you think any one informed him ? —I could not say. There are three other staff officers there, and they may have told him or they may not. I can only say that I never did. 82. Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones.] But you were aware of the memorandum in connection with the special work ? —Oh, yes. He may or may not have been informed, as far as I know. 83. Mr. B. McKenzie.] The only authority for his employment was the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones's approval of your recommendation of the payment of £4 a week ?—Yes, beyond Captain Clark's completing the discharges of the Ninth and Seventh Contingents. They are admitted and have been paid for. For the work beyond that, the only authority is the Hon. Mr. Hall-Jones's authority for £4 a week. 84. Here is a duplicate voucher sent in by Captain Clark on the 29th June, 1903, signed by Major Smith, accepting £82 13s. 4d. in settlement of this claim and leaving the question of his promotion to captain in South Africa for further consideration. Was this sum ever offered to Captain Clark ?—Not that I know of. 85. So that you do not know whether he would have accepted this or not, had it been offered to him at £4 a week before he started the work?— No. The question of his rank as captain is outside of this business altogether, and I understand it has been referred to the Imperial authorities. 86. Mr. Wood.] The amount of money would not have anything to do with the rank, would it ? No, excepting that if the rank of captain were granted to him, he would claim extra. 87. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Which of your officers would send that order of Mr. Hall-Jones's for £4 a week to the Under-Secretary? —Major Smith. 88. It would come back from the Minister to you?—lt came back to me, yes. 89. To whom would you give it ?—I would sign it myself when I sent it down. When lam away on inspection duty, Major Smith signs for me. 90. You have read the note saying that this authority had been filed away with Captain McGee's papers? —Yes. 91. Who had Captain McGee's papers ? —They are filed in the office in charge of the Chief Staff Officer. 92. Well, then, having said it was filed away with Captain McGee's papers, how could the authority have gone to the Under-Secretary for Defence ?—lt may have gone and been returned. 93. If it is a Ministerial authority it must remain with the Under-Secretary, must it not? —That would depend on how it originated. 94. Now, if, as is stated in your notes, the authority was filed with Captain McGee's papers, how could the Under-Secretary know anything about it ?—He could not unless it had gone to him and been returned. It may or it may not have been.