MR. HINE'S CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 977, 18 November 1910, Page 2

MR. HINE'S CHARGES.

» allegations against mr. kaihau Petitions to parliament. ■ 'SEND ME THE MONEY. , SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE. Tho Hine Allegations Committee continued its inquiries yesterday, the sitting being devoted chiefly to the hearing of soma interesting .evidence on .further charges against Mr. Kaihau, M.P. Mr. J. A. Hanan, M.P.,. presided. Mr. M. Myers appeared for Mr. J. B. Hine, M.P., and Mr. Henare Kaihau, M.P., was represented by Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. F. B. Sharp. THE STRATFORD ELECTION. .. THE PEEMIER AND ME, SYMES. Before tho principal business of the sitting, Sir Joseph Ward called two witnesses in connection with the charges against Mr. Walter Symes, M.P. Joseph M'Cluggage, of Stratford, said that Sir Joseph Ward was- asked to speak at Stratford on behalf of Mr. Symes, prior to the last general election, and-declined to do so, giving as his reason that some charges had been publicly" made against Mr. Symes, and stating that if Sir. Symes we're elected he (the Prime Minister) would move for a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the charges. To Mr. Massey: Sir Joseph Ward did not speak at New Plymouth or any other place in the district. The Hon. W. C. P. Carncross, M.L.C., and proprietor of the "Eltham Argus," gave corroborative evidence. THE CASE AGAINST MR. KAIHAU. PETITIONS TO PABLIAMENT. The remainder of- the sitting was de-. voted to tho, : hearing of evidence called, by Mr. JJyers : in connection, with the cliarge— ■ .That Henare Kaibau, in the years. .1900, 1902, 1904, 1905, and 1907, while a member of Parliament, charged, and received from, various persons ou whose behalf he prepared or presented, or undertook to present, petitions, to Parliament, payments or sums of money for his services, relating thereto or 'in conjunction therewith. This charge referred to six separate and distinct alleged payments. Mr. Myers intimated that tho allegation in respect Hakiaha Tawhaio in or. about the year 1902 for alleged services in connection, with a petition presented to Parliament) .was. withdrawn. Horomona's Bank Book'. Th 6 first branch of the charge referred to tin alleged ■ payment liv Horomoiiti Watarauihi in the year 1905" in respect of a petition which was to have been pre- -j ssnted to Parliament. -The evidence of Horomona Watarauihi was taken last Monday. '"'■■'■ Kobert Daniel Kelly, clerk'in the General Post Office, produced a Post Office Savings Bank booli of Horomona Watarauihi, of Matakana, showing that .£ls was withdrawn and paid out at the Post Office, Ngaruawahia, on March 8,'1905; ' To Mr.. Skerrett: There had been sis withdrawals of the same amount since 1905. .'■:'. , . To Mr. Myers: The only withdrawal of jeia in ISOS was the one previously mentioned; ' Mr. Henry Otterson, clerk to the House of Representatives, gave formal evidence from tho Parliamentary .records as to the presentation-and.fate, of r all the petitions referred to. ; - "Lest it. be too Late," " . The next allegation was that Mr. Kaihau had. received: . -. ■■■-■'-..;• .>_...-. ■:.-.<.. A payment by or on behalf of Mohi te Wara in the year 190 i in •connection with' a petition'.to Parlia- ' ment. ■ ■.- • Mr. Otterson's evidence in this connection was, inter alia) that the petition of Mohi te Wara was presented, by. Mr: Kaihau, and tho Native ,Affairs Committee on October 13, 190-1, reported that it had no recommendation to make. ■ Keritoko te Ahu, of Pukemiro . and Huntly, .said he Imcw Mohi te Wara, who died last snmraer. Witness "acted as his agent in 1904. Mohi te Wara claimed to bo interested in land at Whangape, Lots 21 and 22, .and witness was his agent in connection with a petition to.Parliament regarding that land in 1904. Witness asked. Mr. Kaihau to present tho .petition. He received in August a telegram from Wellington: "Send me the petition and the money, lest if 1 be too late.—H. Kaihau." ' • • He sent, a wire in reply, and forwarded the petition and the money in the same" envelope by registered post. It was .£ls. He also received a telegram dated August 17: "The petition , and - the money have arrived.—H. Kaihau." Later ho received the following wire, dated October 11:— "Your petition has been passed by the committee, but the preparation of the clause for the Act will take . " place afterwards, when the. stage of I tho washing-up Bill is reached. Send me £o for the working of the clause, speedily.—Kaihau." Witness's friend, Te Whiu -Himiona, sent the .£5, witness being with him when he 'sent it. A few days before the money was sent, ho received a telegram from Mr. Kaihau, stating that the money had not yet arrived, and asking him to send it that week. Mr. Ngata Consulted. To Sir Joseph Ward: Ho asked Mr. Ngata, in 1908, whether petitions should bo paid for, and Mr. Ngata replied, by telegram, under date September 15, 190S: "Your wire received. It is not- . right to pay members of Parliament in regard to petitions.—A. T. Ngata." At the time of the payments to Mr. Kaihau, witness did not ask any member of the Government whether such payments should be made. They were in ignorance of the procedure, and paid what was asked for. Mr. Skerrett asked the interpreter (Mr. , Barclay) whether the words he hail translated, "tho working of the clause," could be translated "tho drafting of tho clause." Mr. Barclay said the words could be understood in that' sense, "A Mere Nothing—£2s." Evidence was next heard on the allegation that Mr. Kaihau received a payment by Rewatn Hiriako in ■ tho year 1907 for alleged services in connection vtjlh a petition presented to Parliament. Eewatu Hiriako, of Matiu, said that ho was interested in the. Umukaiinata Block, and in 1907 he gave a petition to Mr. Massey concerning this block. A long timo afterwards Mr. Kaihau spoke to him about, the matter at the Wellington Hotel. This was shortly lreforo the fire at the Parliamentary Buildings (December, 1007). Mr. Kaihau, on that occasion, told witness ho had been wrong in not remembering him as the member for the Western Maori district. Witness replied that Mr. Knihau was to blame for not being here attending Parliament. Mr. Kaihau admitted (his, ami after further conversation witness paid him £ib. Why did you givo him the money?— "First, because he was my'member, and second because he asked for it." But for what services did you give him tho money?—" That, of course, I don't know." How much did lie ask you for?—"Oh, a mere nothing—,£2s." (Laughter.) Witness further said that Mr. Kaihau told him' tho affair would he finished in about five minutes, and took him to see Mr. Carroll. The money was paid in notes. To Sir Joseph Ward: Witness did nol communicate with any member of the Government about the payment to Mr. Kaihau. - . ■ ■ •

Alleged Request for £10. ","•""' '■• Evidence was then called to show that Mr. Kaibau received ■' ...,-. a payment by ICahii ■ Huatare in -the '■-. year 1900 in connection with a petition presented to Parliament. Kahu Huatare, of Otorohanga, said he sent a petition to :Mr: Kaihau in 1900, m reference to Wakanui, deceased.' Hβ afterwards received a telegram from Mr. Kaihau. 'He had not kept a copy. It asked for he did not know what for. Witness • had ho other ' business with Mr. Kaihau .except in connection. with tho petition. He sent tho .£lO, and camo to Wellington himself, at Mr. Kaihau's request. Mr. Kaihau told him he had received the money. ■ To Sir Joseph Ward: He did not communicate with the Government about the payment to Mr. Kaihau. Mr. Skorrett did uot cross-examine the above Maori witnesses. Ho stated that he had not had an opportunity of obtaining his client's instructions on. these , matters. ■ "For Looking Up Records. , ? Mr. Kaihau was further alleged to havq. received a payment.by. a member or members of the Ngatireke tribe in 1905 in connection with a petition, to Parliament. ,To Kamanomano, a chief of the Nga/i tireke, of Ngamawahia, said he was in- ■ terested in the Manuaitu Aotea Block. Hβ '"" sent a petition about it to Mr. Kaihau - in 1905, and spoke-to him in Wellington about presenting it to the House,' and '.- gave him : ,£ls. Witness had previously ; asked Mr. Kaihau for money for a meeting at Waharoa at which Mr. Jlahuta was present. Mr.'Kaihau gave him .£lO. He also asked Mr. Kaihau for .£5 as a. contribution for . the expenses of a.- f un-i ■ era},. and ■ the money was given, '. Kaihau saying that he could.repay it when convenient. In connection with the. petition he paid Mr. Kaihau £10 for searching the Court books and so on. Hβ was staying at the same boardinghousft. as Mr. Kaihau. When the petition was' drawn up, Mr. Kaihau asked for \£lo to pay the expenses of the people, who wer» looking up the Court, records. • • ■': To Mr. Skerrett::Mr. Kaihau carried on business as a Native agent, and the .£lO was paid him for work as such. The .£ls was repayment of money lent. To Sir Joseph.Ward:-Witness did not communicate with the Government about '■ the payments. ' . ~..•■. ;- . '■',• Recollections Differ.;. ;;■ ' ;, ■Horomona Watarauihi, recalled by Mr. ''. Myers, said that on the evening/of the- : V day when he previously gave evidence • fore the committee Mr. Kaihau came to see- him at tho Wellington Hotel, where .-' he was staying. Para Haimona cam» with him. Mr. Kaihau said that either ..- the witness of himself must have beea mistaken about the money witness-gave him, for so far as he remembered it was' only-,£5. Witness replied that his recol- : lection was that it was ,£ls. He,did hot remember any request being made to him- v at this interview to do or anything. :. Before the committee rose some discus- ' sion took place as to the work still before, it. Two more .witnesses are-to be.calledin the Flaxbourno case—the Hon';',Dr." i Findlay (by Sir Joseph Ward) -and Mr.■.', ■'• Griffin (by Mr. Myers). It is understood ..: that they will be heard to-day. Mr. Sker-v' rett is also to have an opportunity , .' to--cross-examine some of the Maori ; wit«-., nesses and to present his defence of, his " clients. He stated that he did not thini "' this would occupy mucji time. Sir Joseph Ward also wishes to call Mr. Heming- - way, of Stratford, but he stated that,if . of the evidence was finished 6oi .'.■'. day he would not do so. The general > opinion seems to be that if the commit--■; tee docs not sit to-morrow tho taking of • evidence will not bo finished this week. ■'. Tho committee adjourned until 10 a.m. . to-day. . f ' '.. _ REPORT OF THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEE. ' '; "NQ VIOLATION OF THE .LAW. , * ' ; The first step in, the ' direction, of ; ; finality*jin.-.iregM(l..to the charges made.by Mr. J.. B. Hine, "M.P. for Stratford,-': was made yesterday, when the Chair- '■ man of the Select-Committee which in... vestigared tho ■made, > Hon.""T. : "Kennedy itf acdonald,- - presented-".-the report of the committee to the Legislative Council/- The -report'of -the conv , ■ mittee reads as under:— v , .(1) That it has inquired into the charge made by the hon. mqmbef'for Stratford, ' Mr. Hine, against the, Hon. Mr. , Macdonald, a member of the'LegisiativeCouncil, ' viz.:' : ■ .. ' : "That Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, in or about the year-JDOi and subse- , fluent years, while, a member of tho Legislative Council, either alone or in ; conjunction with his then , partner, a > land agent, conducted the salo to the • .. Government of the property of one' John. . ' Motley Leigh, at Nai fiai, and'tie properties of other persons, and received v from tho said. John: Motley. Leigh and the vendors of'such , other properties, commissions or : other- , sums ". . of money; or, alternatively, the said ; ', Thomas Kennedy Macdonald and his . said partner received tho said com- • : missions or. other sums and divided : the same." ' f . (2) That Mr. Myers appeared ! as. coum ■ sel. for Mr. Hine, and Mr. Skerrett, ' K.C., and Mr. Sharp for the Hon. Mr. Macdonald. - . (3) That Mr. Myers confined the above charge to two matters:—(a) The sale of " Mr. Leigh's property.' at Nai.Nai, and (b) -the sale'of a portion of Mr'.' and Mrs, .' Love's estate at Wniwetu, near Hutt. •• (i) That before the inquiry, was en» : . tered upon, accused, ,, for-Mr. Bine, stated that no charge of collusion nor any. imputation was made against the Govern- ■ ment or any officer of the Government in'connection with-these two charges. ■ (5) That. - considerable evidence wa»' ■. taken during the inquiry. (G) That the evidence shows that the . firm of Macdonald, Wilson, and Co., land , agents, of which the Hon. Mr. Macdonald : was a member, negotiated the sale tov the Government in 1905, (a) of the pro-:'. perty of John Motley Leigh, at Nai Nai, ' and" received from the vendors a commission for such sale; (b) of a portion. ■' of Mr. and -Mrs.- Love's estate at Wai- :. wotu, near Hutt, and received from the . vendors a cpmmission for such sale. (7) That in the conduct of these two '. sales the firm of Macdonald, Wilson,' and ; Co. acted as agents for the vendors of the properties, and not as • agents for .-■. the Government. •■■: (8) That these sales to the Government ; were conducted regularly and properly y. in accordance with law through the Land ■': Purchase Boardi and that no. undue in- v fluence of any kind in connection with ; v these sales was exerted by' anyone .upoa .; the members of that board. ; ' (9) That your committee is therefore • of opinion that the evidence taken by ■ the committee does.not disclose any vio- 1, lation of tho law or any breach of the.Standing Orders of the Legislative Coun-i. The report was laid on the table. ±