THE HINE CHARGES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13881, 4 November 1910, Page 4

THE HINE CHARGES.

j » i LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE. (rnrss association' tei.kgham.) WELLINGTON, November 2. The Mine charges committee of the Upper House resumed at S p.m. .Mr James Mackenzie, Commissioner oi Crown Lauds for the Wellington disiliiet. said the expenditure on the Xait i'ai property by the Government was i'lo'j'J lor draining, gorse clearing;, and repairing. '^ 1C iconic to date from the pronorty "was £14(33, Ld'.i'o or this i amount Icing for the sale of five acics. The question of the suitability of tho land lor workmen's homes had not been yone inr> in his office. TJie land now hold under the Land for Settlements Act was awaiting development. To -Mr .Skorrett: J. and hall a rnilo iv.vay was offered in liJOl for jL'iOo. and in i'iJOl for per acre. He heard that the train terminus was to bo near the Nainai property. To tho Hon. J>r. Findhiy: l"or tiie purposes of workmen's dwelling ho iliotHit the land would be suitable. He had had a yood deal of experience in tho ourchnse of land for the Government. The Government had to pay titl! value, plus expenses, for all In lid taken eompulsoriiy. It was expedient to purchase land before any works were* undertaken that might lenelit that land, than afterwards. Re-examined by Mr Myers: No effort beyond leasing * for grazing purposes was made, by the Department to utilise the land during the past two years. Alexander Uarron, retired Civil Servant, .said he. was chairman of the Land Purchase Board Commission for nino years. He went over the Nainai property in ifHM, aa<l again in April, IDO.j. with Me-srs Duncan, Marehant, M.acdonnld, and KesiMJiiiton. He knew o f no communication between Mr Macdonald and any Minister. Ho discussed the Hutt properties generally with tho late Mr »Seddon, but no special land. _Mr Skerrett here objected to Mr Myers's mode of examination as cxaminer-in-ehiof. The Hon.. Dr. l''indlay, he said, wanted the fullest light thrown upon all that occurred between Mr Sixldon and witness in connection with the transaction. After a, lengthy argument, the examination of witness was proceeded with. Mr Macdonald, he .said, had given his opinion that the property was worth L'2(K) per aero, at which price hi.s firm offered it in April, 1905., to the Government. To T)r. Firdlny : He was for forty n'n? years in the Put".lie .Service as chairman of the Land Purchase' JJar.rd. He did his best for the people of New Zealand ; he was in the position of uuycr, doing his best for his employers, as he would I for himself. There was no attempt on the part of Mr Seddon to influence him tj make any recommendation ho did not approve of. Mr Seddon was v«ry anxious to obtain land at the Hutt. He had no reason to believe that MrSpddon took a bribe from Mr Macdonakl or ! Mr Leigh in connection with the sale ot the properly. He did not conceive that Mr iSeddon was in collusion with Mr Macdonald to foist the property on the country. Tt was inconceivable that there was any fraud on the part of Mr iSeddon or Mr Macdonald in connection with the sale. He could swear to the committee that there wars absolutely no influence, politically or othenvi o, in connection with the sale of the Xainai Estate to the Government. H. Love, wife of D. Love, of Picton, snid she was the owner of a piece of land at Waiwi'tu. .She had had dealings with Maedonald, Wilson, and Co. to buy her land. The sale of the land to Macdonald, Wilson, and Co. was not completed. The Government bought 25 acres of her land. Subsequently Mr Macdonald advised her to sell her land to the Government, otherwise they would acquire it under Clio Public Works Act. She did not.want to sell her land; it was a dowry. .She was charged commission by Macdonald. Wilson, and Co. on tho sale of the land to the Government. A. L. Wilson, recalled, said that his firm were agents for Mrs Love. When the question of buying Mrs Love's property, in hb name, was proposed, witdcnb refused to agree, go the sale if id not eventuate. The tirm then entered into negotiations for tiie sale of the property to the Government, who would only buy 2t acres, tho price being £(j(.)~o. or only £-l-'2"> k.s. : i than the whole C)'S acres were to be purchased for in witness's name. .). Ritchie, recalled, said that Mncdonald, Wilson, and Co. first brought ftlrs Love's property under the notice of the Government in ifJOo. Caveriiill valued the flat hind at JL2SO ncr acre, the hilly land at £2 per acre. Mr L'arron recommended the uurchase of tho whole estate for I'fj2Bfj. The Crown subsequently purchased 21 acres for £GO".->. J. L. Morrison, land agent, said that in 1005 Macdonald, Wilson, and to. took over the management of Mrs Love's affairs. The price agreed upon for the sale of Mr:; Lore's property to Wilson was I'fioOf). The committee adjourned at 10.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. next day. WELLINGTON," November 3. The Iliue Committee- of tho Low , .".- House met this morning, when all the members of the committee were present. Mr G. A*. P< nree, member for Patei, said that lie was one of the lessees of West Coast lands. The whole of th> ecst,s of the action Maoris v. Turner, in 1891. were, paid by a levy on 'ill the* leaseholders, including the firm of W. and A. Syme.s. The costs amounted to over £'3(10. Mr Myers was granted permission to put in some letters from Mr Sym&s to Mr Gower, cue of the leaseholders, ri one of which Mr Syii.es migge.sted that leaseholders, who received refunds, should subscribe to make little eurpnsc presents to certain members of tho committee who had helped to get tho matter through. Mr Myers said that Mr Goivcr was unable to l>3 .present, and in reply to Sir Joseph Ward, said that Mr Gower had never communicated -with the Government regarding t'-iose letters. This closed Mr Xh, \ s r s case- inchargj three. .The committee then took charge four, in which Mr Symes is alleged to have threatened to use political influence i against the '"Stratford Evening Post ■' unless he received the support" of tho paper. W. F. Anderson, managing director of tho -Stratford Evening Post," said that in September, IPOo, while a general election war; in view, a letter •vas received from Mr Svrne.s by Mr AJcCiuirgagf, o?!e ef the '•Post, directed, paying that tiie question of Government adverr : .sir.g in the ■Post" depended on the •'Post's -, treatment of Mr Syir.e.s. Unt : l then the "Post" >v,is not on tho list of papers for Government advertising. On recei.pt (if .Mr Symes's letter the directors sent the manager to Wellington to see the Minister in charge of that Department, and th<> paper was put on tho T :-t straight rnvay. "without any trouble. At that time the "Pest" was a noiv paper, started by a company fortnr-i to nurchii.se two papers, tho Settlor" and tho "Egmont Post," iKith of which, he believed. Jiad l>et*n on the Government advertising list. Sir Joseph Wp.rd interposed that he would produce evidence later to that tlio "Settlor" was on the list, but the "Post"' "war, not. Jn answer to Sir Joseph Ward, ffio witness sni'l that the manager had no trouble in having the paper placed on the advertising list. A majority of the directors were recognised Oppositionists. Joseph McCluggage, Uhangamonna. storekeeper, and director of the Stratford "Post," said that he sup-

ported Mr %mes in the 1905 -election. The only man to communicate with flic Government m advertising was the managv-r. Tho letter from Mr Syines was a private one. and Mr Hemingway, Mr Iline's secretary, had no right to j have it or it for publication. William Y.'liillock. proprietor of tho Hastings "Standard,"'said that he was manager of the Egmont ''.Settler" until tlu> amalgamation of the two papers, and then ia:- some tinio manager of the ■Strutford "Post." When he interviewed Sir Joseph Ward, witness did not tell him of .\h Symes's letter, and Sβ had no difficulty in getting the paper placed on tho list. The question of paper's policy did not crop up ill eifuer interview or correspondence. tßy Mr Millar: Although Mr McCluggage had put a note in the corner of the letter asking for its return after perusal by the editor, witness had left it with the company's solicitors. To Mr Skerrett: "I did not know that on his return from Wellington Mr Symc.vs letter had been , submitted to ;: solicitor with a view to ascertaining whether it brought Mr Symes undor th..» provisions of the Corrupt Practices I Act," j Mr Reed suggested that Mr Ander- j son .should bo recalled io allow tho committee to trace how tho letter passed out of tho hands of the right persons, and vas used politically. i Sir Joseph Ward md Mr Millar sun- ; ported the request, l>nt Messrs Massey, ' j Aile.'i and opposed it. and ihe I chairman ruled against Mr Reed. Mr Copping, editor of the ''Post," i was railed at Sir Joseph Ward's re- : quest, and .said that he was also tho Stratford representative of tho Press : i j Association. Xo one els? in Stratford ' was authorised to send Press AssociaI t:on messages. As the Press As.socia- | tion representative, he did not .send n ; loii'z telegram on the night of Mr j Hine's arrival at Stratford, stating that Mr Hine had been enthusiastically received, although this telegram was headed Press Association in some morn- ■ in" paner.s. j Mr Myers s.".id that that closed the evv.lenco on tho charge, whereupon Air M"a,jor asked that' the charges against him be taken to-morrow, as"lie dosirtd to "ot aiVKj - . ; Mr .Major added that he adniitt-.vl that he had received commission on the •sale of F. Barclay's property, but ?c----nied any connection with the -second charge, in which it was alleged he ncte 1 with Mr Symes for the sale of Alfr;d liavly's property to the Government The request w.a.s agreed to. and iho committee then adjourned till to-mor- : row. i