§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the unanimous resolution of the Kerry County Council, at a special meeting on December 28th, condemning the partisan manner in which Mr. Cyril Browne referred to the officials of the Kerry County Council; and, if so, having regard to his partisan reports, the injury 205 he tried to inflict on the ratepayers, and the dissatisfaction he has given to public men in the county, this officer will be still retained in the public service.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe Local Government Board have received the resolution referred to. They consider that then is no ground whatever for the accusation contained in it. The auditor in his report pointed out, as the fact was, that the accounts of the county council were in some respects kept in a slovenly and inaccurate manner and the bonds and other documents improperly filled up. This, though true, is styled in the Question "partisan" conduct. The Local Government Board consider that the auditor faithfully and fearlessly discharged his duty, and they will continue to avail themselves of his valuable services.
§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the auditor, Mr. Cyril Browne, who recently audited the accounts of the Kerry County Council did not include his objection to the manner in which the accounts are kept or to the way in which the public moneys are apportioned in the accounts or estimates in his report to the county council instead of making a private report to the Local Government Board as to the manner in which the purchase price of the Limerick and Kerry Railway was apportioned in accounts and estimates of the Kerry County Council.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe auditor's report to the county council contains all the criticism which he found it necessary to make on the items in the account before him. His confidential communication to his superiors merely had reference to the manner in which he should examine into this exceptional matter.
§ MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the printing contract of the Kerry County Council, the auditor, Mr. Cyril R. Browne, was made aware that an action was pending in the superior Courts in connection with this contract; and, if so, will he explain why this auditor issued a separate report 206 on this matter a month in advance of his general report, and directed that a copy be at once given to the plaintiff, so that it might reach him in time for the trial; whether he is aware that, when evidence was tendered by the county secretary, showing the unsatisfactory manner in which this contractor had discharged former printing contracts, the auditor failed to take down this evidence or include it in his report, and to make any reference in his report to the affidavit of the county secretary showing the reductions in the cost of printing and advertising in the different boards of the county by the competition recently introduced; whether the auditor submitted this evidence to the Local Government Board; and, if so, what action, if any, they will take; and whether the auditor in disputing the contention of the county council that printing is not a public work has been authorised to do so by the Local Government Board.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe facts are not accurately stated in the Question. The contract before the auditor was for the printing for the year 1903–4. That which was the subject matter of litigation was for the succeeding year 1904–5. The auditor did not issue any separate report on the contract before him. Application was made to him under the 12th Section of the Local Government Act 0f 1871, and 15th Section of the Act of 1902, to annul the contract and surcharge all the payments made thereunder, on the ground that the lowest tender had not been accepted and that the county council in accepting it had acted mala fide. The auditor decided in favour of the county council, holding that their conduct was not mala fide. He gave that decision in writing as he was bound to do under statute. The objector was entitled to be made aware of his decision and hence the auditor communicated with him. The final payment under the contract for 1903–4 did not come before the auditor at all. That will be included in the accounts to be submitted for the next audit, when the evidence referred to will become pertinent, and if offered will, if legal, be received and considered. Until the next audit the Local Government Board have no power to interfere in the matter. The auditor is bound to determine questions of law 207 raised before him, independently, according to the best of his ability and without communication with his superiors, who sit as a Court of Appeal on his decision.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)Was not the auditor's report used by the plaintiff as evidence in an action which arose out of the matter?
§ [No Answer was returned.]