FIZZLED OUT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 989, 2 December 1910, Page 6

FIZZLED OUT.

5 - • . W . - i A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. f __ b MR. OKEY'S COUNTER-MOVE. 3 J ■ ' k _ FUTILE DEBATE INTHEHOUSE. 3 In The Dominion yesterday appeared f a summary of a claim which/Mr. Joshua _ Jones has put, forward to' the Prime . Minister for an. open inquiry in regard j_ to the Mokau Estate. There were also -' published extracts from a covering letter J. by Mr. Okey, M.P. for Taranaki, who p expressed. the opinion that Mr. Davey, t Chairman of tho A to L Committee, t which recently heard a petition by Mr. 3 Jones, had not allowed Mr. Jones a full J opportunity of placing his case before the committee. Yesterday, in the House, - Mr. Davey strongly protested against the action of Mr. Okey in sending a letter 1 to the Prime Minister reflecting upon ' the manner in which ho had presided :, over the committee. Were the extracts which he quoted from The Dominionr portions of a letter' which Mr. Okey had [ so written? This was a question which he addressed to Mr. Okey. Mr. Okey said. Mr. Davey knew that I he objected at the committee meeting t to Mr. Jones not being called to give e rebutting evidence. Mr. Jones himself f must have given the letter to The i Dominion. He (Mr. Okey) wrote a letter to 3 the Prime Minister, and Mr. Jones had 3 a copy of it and must have given'it tb - the newspaper. ! An Emphatic Protest. 1 Mr. Davey said he . did not know - whether it could be described as a breach 3 of privilege to write a letter of that ■ kind, but he wished to enter an emphatic ■ protest against it. He would like tho ■ . members of the committee to say whether s he acted unfairly as chairnmn of the B committee. He had never been' accused - of being unfair, and he had never con--1 sciously acted unfairly. In his opinion i it was an extraordinary thing for a mems ber of. Parliament to do. Mr. Okey had J he (Mr. Davey)' had not treated Mr. i Jones fairly. Hβ had been mado to with- , draw the words, and tho matter would - never have been mentioned had this other 1 matter not cropped up. Mr. E. H.. Taylor (Thames) argued that the letter was an absolute reflection upon every member of the committee. \ He had never seen a chairman who acted j more patiently or who gave more liberty than 'Mr. Davey. Ho thought a -resolu- ' tion should be passed protesting against members' of the Opposition- casting unwarrantable reflections on members on the. Government side. (Opposition j laughter.) Messrs. Jennings, M'Donald, Newman, lusher, and Hino declared that in their ". opinion Mr. Jones had had fair treatment by the chairman. ; The Hon. E. MTCcnzie said that every ' member of tho committee sympathised 3 with Mr. Jones. No restrictions were J placed upon Mr. Jones in the matter of , laying his evidence before the committee. 1 He looked upon tho letter as a wanton [ slauder on members of the committee.^ ; Mr. Okey Turns the Tables. t Mr. Okey (Taranaki) said that neither' ! Mr. Newman nor Mr. Hine were present » at tho last meeting of the committee. i Ho had told the chairman that he was j not- satisfied with the treatment Mr. 3 Jones had • received. Mr; Jones felt that he had not had proper treatment in'referS enco to, the evidence. - He found that Dr. Firidlay, before he gave his evidence,was allowed to get'a copy of Mr. Jones's • evidence. If it were right for Dr. Findlay . to get a copy, Mr. Jones should not havo f. been, refused a copy of it. When Mr. l Jones applied for a copy, Mr. Davey said ' that ho could take a copy. The clerk, ; however, said that ho must copy it out j while he was in tho room. If he (tho , clerk) left; Mr. Jones alsp would have l r to .leave. _ Ho (Mr. Okey) said he was t doubtful if a breach • of privilege had not j been committed in allowing Dr. Findlay , to get a copy of the- evidence. ' 3lr. Massey: Was that-done?. Continuing, Mr. Okey siid ho thought that Mr. Jones should ■ have had tho ' right -of calling evidenco in rebuttal .of \ the evidence given by Dr. Findlay and ' others. He had no chance to reply to their statements. ] Mr. Davey: That is not correct. [ Proceeding, Mr. Okey said it was quite right that Mr. Davey called upon, him , \ to withdraw in regard to his protest, and j rather than cause trouble he had done ■ so. Mr. Okey..said that Mr..Jones had : a copy, of the letter which he sent to ; the Primo Minister. It must have been ' Mr/ Jones who gave a copy to The DoMrNioK. When Mr. . Jones's papers ' were wanted at times it was found that Dr. Findlay had them. Mr. Newman explained that he was I present at the last . meeting of the , committee. .-'.■■ ' Mr. Massey called attention to Mr. ; Okey's remark, to the effect that Dr. [ Findlay received a copy of Mr. Jones's f evidence before he himself gave evidenco. Order 240 read that proof copies . of the evidence were to be given to nobody I besides members of the committee. Hβ j 'wished Mr. Speaker to rule on tho point. Mr. Davey Surprised. Mr. Davey said ho was. surprised that , Mr.. Okey should try to shelter his own misconduct before the committee by writi ing a letter scarifying its members who had not agreed with him. Mr. Jones . wanted exactly what bad been allowed I Dr. Findlay. He would admit that he , accidentally broke the Standing Orders. 1 Although ho told Mr. Jones at first that ! he could got a copy, he afterwards told ! him that ho had made a mistake. Why '[ was Mr. Okey not man enough to tell the House so? ; • . ! Jlr. Okey: You never told me? Mr. Davey went .on to say that while : Mr. Jones .was giving evidence he made several' very strong statements condemn- ' ing Dr. Findlay. Ho.told him that of necessity Dr. Fiudlay must bo given an ' opportunity to seo the statements, in order that he could refute them.- If Dr. Findlay' had not been able to get a look at the evidence it would mean that he ■ (Mr. Davey) would have had to ask him : a multitude of questions. ' Mr. Willord said that Dr. Findlay could have been present when Mr. Jones was giving evidence if he had liked. Ml , . Davey added that he only gave Dr. Findlay a fair chance of- defending . himself. After each witness had given ' evidence, lie asked Mr. Jones and his solicitor if they had any questions to 1 ask. For himself, he believed Mr. Jones got every consideration. He was, in his . opinion, a much-wronged man. i Mr. Massey asked if it were a fact that 1 Dr. Findlay introduced new matter. , Mr. Davey. No. Tho Hon. R. MTCenzie said this breach was frequently committed every session. In view of tho grave charges mado against . Dr. Findlay, the chairman was perfectly ■ justified in showing him the evidence. The Speaker Rules, : The Speaker ruled that a breach of privilege had been committed in the proceedings of tho committee, no doubt, as ; explained by the chairman, inadventently. ' The Speaker expressed the opinion that 1 somo amendment of the Standing Orders was necessary to allow persons against i whom an allegation was made to know , the evidence they had to meet. Mr. Davey said the committee had' passed a resolution that tho evidenco ! should bo shown to Dr. Findlay, and he i had ruled that such a resolution could not 1 be taken.' He had extended flie "samo privilege to Mr. Jones. Ho asked if a ■ breach of privilege had been committed , in connection with tho letter. , Mr. Massey said if writing' a letter to tho Prime Minister nfter petitions were reported on was a breach of the Standing [ Orders, lie was guilty every week, When • a petition was reported on favourably ho : made a practice of communicating with ■ the Minister affected, asking him to givo effect to the prayer of tho petitioner. Mr. Davey: Do you cast reflections on ' the committee? ■ 1 Jtr. Massey: That is another matter ; altogether. Tho Speaker said it was an abstract , question. If a member had communicated i with the Primo Minister with, regard to : a finding of a committee, and in it used ■ language, which, if used on the floor of i the House would be held to be unparliamentary, lie was guilty of a breach oi.

privilege. On the assumption that 6uoh language was used, he would rule that a breach of privilege had been committed. Mr. Davey took the clipping from Tnc Dominion up to the Speaker. Tlio Speaker said he was only ' called upon to expound the general principle. The Opposition Amused. The Hon. B. M'Kenzio: Do , you rule that the member has committed a breach of privilege? . Tho Speaker said that before he could give a ruling tho necessary form of proceduro would have to be gone- through. The Hon. E. M'Keuzio: I move that in tho opinion of this House ho has committed a breach of privilege in writin" a letter reflecting on the Chairman of tho A to L Committee. The Speaker: I have not tho letter. Mr. Massey asked whether the breach of privilege was in tho publication of the letter or the writing of it. ■ Tho Speaker asked the Minister to pro,duce the newspaper. Mr. MiCenzie said that as it was so ■late in the session ho would ask leave ■to withdraw the motion. The announcement was greeted with hearty "hear, hears" from the Government benches and laughter from the Opposition.