102

Mr. Wylde cannot be exonerated from the charge of culpable negligence, there does not appear to me to be any warrant for believing that the misrepresentation was wilful or fraudulent. The return was, as he states, made up from information supplied to him by the Clerk of the Works, and though that officer says he is not aware that he furnished Mr. Wylde with any return beyond the wages of the men employed, he guards himself from any express or absolute denial. On the other hand, in addition to Mr. Wylde’s own positive assertion, Mr. Dobson’s evidence is very explicit on the point that it was the duty of the Clerk of the Works to supply the Engineer with the necessary data for making out the account. I am therefore inclined to believe that Mr. Henwood is primarily responsible for this inaccuracy, though Mr. Wylde cannot be excused for having neglected sufficiently to test it.

In a second return made up by Mr. Wylde, though not laid on the table of the House, he seems to have endeavoured rather to check the correctness of the former by experiment, than to ascertain the actual cost of the bridge, and this apparently from his not having sufficiently mastered the system of keeping the accounts in operation when he took office to allow of his making up a return without the Clerk of the Works. Closer application has enabled him to make out the third return which I believe to be a correct one, exclusive of approaches, lamps, and painting.

On the second branch of the enquiry; the cost of constructing the breakwater at the Waimakariri and the account to which it is chargeable, the return as to cost furnished by Mr. Wylde is correct as proved by examination of vouchers. Mr. Dobson supports Mr. Wylde in his view as to the work being properly chargeable against the North Road; and the latter gentleman states that not only had he this work in contemplation when he supplied the data for the estimated expenditure on the road, but that it was at that time actually in course of construction. Although, therefore, the connection between a breakwater and the repair or construction of a road may not at first sight be apparent to non-professional minds, Mr. Wylde appears to have been correct in an engineering point of view in his mode of charging the account, and the expediency or inexpediency of any particular work is clearly not within the province of the Auditor. The only tangible ground for any doubt having been originally entertained as to this account is this, that three accounts amounting in all to £54 2s., were sent to this office under the heading “Waimakariri Breakwater” instead of “North Road,” and, as appearing to be for a new work, were placed by me under “Unvoted Expenditure.” These have been transferred by me to the same account as the others, and the Council is referred to Mr. Wylde’s evidence for the explanation.

On the third subject for investigation: it appears that Mr. Wylde has been in the habit of drawing from the Treasury the monies due to certain Contractors, and that in all such cases he has produced their authority in writing. This system had been in operation before Mr. Wylde took office, and is also followed in the Survey Department, where the District Surveyors regularly draw the pay due to their labourers, and the Chief Surveyor in many instances, receives the amount due to Contractors. In no case can money be drawn till the amount has been certified by the head of the department; examined, checked, and signed by the Auditor. The plan pursued has therefore saved trouble and expense to individuals, and has been in no way prejudicial to the interests of the public. Still it is for many obvious reasons most undesirable that the head of a department who has to enter into contracts with second parties for the public service, and on whom the responsibility of seeing these contracts properly carried out devolves, should act as their