Mr. Woodward, Assistant Treasurer, was recalled, and the following questions submitted to him:—

By the Chairman.] In your evidence on Tuesday last you made the following statement:—"I wish to correct my statement that it (the sum of £6,000) was first deposited in January, 1867. It had been deposited in January, 1866, and was intended to secure the moneys belonging to Intestate Estates. When this deposit matured, in January, 1867, the money was again deposited at interest in the Bank of New Zealand, in three sums of £2,000 each. There was more money due to the Intestate Estates. At the time of Mr. Fitzherbert's Statement the money had been out of the Treasury upwards of a year and a half. When it finally matured it was paid into the Public Trust Fund, and was part of the sum of £24,000 to which I have referred. This was in March, 1868. It was deposited for the period of a year from January, 1867. I cannot at this moment explain why it appearr as maturing in March." Can you now explain how this happened?—I find it was simply an accident. The entry in our book on the 23rd of March is for £300, stated as interest on deposit to the 29th January. It lay at the Bank inadvertently not bearing interest till March. It was overlooked. I cannot state why the whole round sum of £24,000 was not repaid in January, 1868.

2:	By Mr. Carleton.] If, as the Committee understand you, the £6,03118s. 9d. paid to the Superintendent of Otago on the 24th of September, 1867, out of the £24,431 2s. 2d. withdrawn from the Public Account on the 29th June, was legally paid out, how is it that £24,399 3s. 5d., being the original page 168sum of £24,431 2s. 2d. minus £31 18s. 9d., was repaid to the Public Account, instead of £18,399 3s. 5d., which, on the foregoing assumption, seems all that was required?—It was simply to place a sum of £24,000 to the credit of the Public Trust Fund as a working balance, which, together with £80,000 directed to the invested in England, made up about the amount belonging to the Trust Fund. Whatever the sum had been, whether more or less than £6,000, it would have been paid in for the purpose Already stated.
3.	How do you reconcile this statement, namely, "that it was simply to pay this sum of £24,000 to the credit of the Public Trust Fund as a working balance," with the manifest intention to repay the exact sum withdrawn, as shown by your reply to yesterday's question, as follows:—"By Mr. Carleton: On referring back to your evidence I find the words, 'After the passing of the Public Revenues Act, Mr. FitzGerald called on the Treasury to pay this deposit (£24,000) into the Public Trust Fund. There was £30,000 in the Bank. I have no doubt that the amount of £24,000was paid back in full to the Public Account. I presume you mean £24,000 in round numbers?—Mr. Woodward: I do. The exact sum paid in was £24,399 3s. 5d., composed of two sums of £18,399 3s. 5d., and £6,000 respectively. By Mr. Carleton: In other words, you paid back the whole sum of £24,4312s. 2d. less £31 18s. 9d.?—Mr. Woodward: That is the case. Both the similarity of the sums and the difference are accidental. By Mr. Carleton: Will you explain what you mean by saying that the difference is accidental?—Mr. Woodward: I mean that we did not intentionally pay back £31 18s. 9d. less than the given sum." Is there not apparently a discrepancy between these two statements?—In September. 1867, a certain amount in deposit (£24,431 2s. 2d.) matured. The sum of £6,031 18s. 9d., which had been paid on the 24th to the Superintendent of Otago, was deducted from that amount, and the balance re-deposited. This balance, with the £6,000 previously deposited, makes the sum which I speak of as paid in in fall. What. I meant to say in my evidence on Tuesday was, that the Treasury did not intentionally repay less than any particular sum.
4.	It appears from your evidence to-day that the sum of £24,000 was placed to the credit of the Public Trust Fund simply as a working balance, but from your evidence yesterday, as just now quoted, that the money was repaid to the Public Account in order to replace the sum withdrawn, which, but for the accidental omission of £31 18s. 9d., would have been exact?—The necessity for providing a working balance in the Trust Fund branch of the Public Account having been recognized (in January, 1868), that working balance was provided by paying in the moneys previously placed in deposit, namely, £18,399 3s. 5d. and £6,000. These amounts were paid in "in full"—that is, such amount as there happened to be; and the fact that, taken together, the sum is so similar to the sum of £24,431 2s. 2d., has already been stated to have been purely accidental. It was not paid in, and I never intended to convey the impression that it was to replace any sum whatever, but to provide the necessary balance, as already stated. Of course I am only stating the Treasury view of the matter, or more strictly, my own. Mr. Fitzherbert was absent, and there was therefore no opportunity to refer to him; and I do not remember that Major Richardson (then acting as Colonial Treasurer) took any different view to that which I did.
5.	You have informed the Committee that the £24,431 2s. 2d. was placed in fixed deposit to secure it. It appears that a requisition by the Treasury was made on the Comptroller for a part of that sum, namely, for £6,031 18s. 9d., which requisition was rejected by the Comptroller. The money was nevertheless paid to the Superintendent of Otago. Allow me to ask, in what did the said security consist, if the money could be spent by the Treasurer without the sanction of the Comptroller?—The only requisition in which the money appears, subsequent to June 1867, is the covering requisition made after the money was paid in January, 1868. There was a whole sum of £710,000 to be accounted; for on 31st December, 1867. Requisitions called "Covering Requisitions" were made out to account for this sum. These were necessarily to a great extent hypothetical; but where actual payments could be defined they were so. Among those appeared the sum of £6,031 18s. 9d., under heading "Dunedin Disputed Reserves." The Comptroller called for the Act to be stated under which the money was paid, and as no such Act could be quoted he struck out the item, and the covering requisition was altered and made up without it, other sums being substituted, the actual adjustment being made to the 30th of June now last passed. The security consisted in having the money apart from ordinary Treasury balances, The Treasurer could actually do as he pleased with it.
6.	By Major Atkinson.] What do you consider was the object in placing in fixed deposit the sum of £24,431 2s. 2d.?—To secure to the extent of the means then at the disposal of the Colonial Treasurer the amounts due for Trust funds, particularly those due to Intestate Estates. In June, Mr. Fitzherbert arranged to spare the sum of £24,431 2s. 2d.
7.	How do you reconcile this with the statement given to Mr. Stafford "that the first-mentioned sum of £6,000, having been really withdrawn from the Treasurer's balance for nearly eighteen months, escaped his memory (and mine) at the time the £24,431 2s. 2d. was deposited. Otherwise I am perfectly satisfied that the amount would have been reduced, and only £18,000 deposited"?—Certain balances had been ascertained, which, together, amounted to the sum of £24,431 2s. 2d.; and as I understood Mr. Fitzherbert's object was to show to the House that Trust funds had been provided for, I therefore think, that if the sum of £6,000, then in deposit, had been remembered, he would have reduced the amount he deposited by that sum.
8.	It would appear then, from your last answer, that the object of the Treasurer was to place the exact sum of £24,431 2s. 2d. in deposit, and not an amount to the extent at the command of the Treasurer, as previously stated by you?—My only answer is, that the sum of £24,431 2s. 2d. having been arrived at as certain balances due at a given date, the Colonial Treasurer went fully to the extent of his means in depositing that sum.
9.	Do you mean his actual means or the means of which he was aware, not including the £6,000? I mean the means known to himself, not including the £6,000.
10.	By the Chairman.] Do you then consider that there was irregularity in the transaction, paying this £6,031 18s. 9d.?—Departmentally, I consider there was no irregularity.page 169
11.	You state in January, 1866, Mr. Fitzherbert determined to replace the £24,000 fixed deposit on account of Intestate Estates. Was not this Mr. Stafford?—I think it was. I believe I was in terror, but it was Mr. Fitzherbert's view. I cannot identify Mr. Stafford, so far as I remember, with this matter.

Resolved, on the motion of Mr. Tancred, That the Committee adjourn until the 4th of September, at 10.30 a.m.