SIR J. WARD'S OUTBURST.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1577, 22 October 1912, Page 6

SIR J. WARD'S OUTBURST.

REPORTED TO THE HOUSE.

A WARI DEBATE.

'■ : The scene which occurred at the meet- '■'*■. lag of the Publio Accounts Committee of !'-..:• the House of Representatives -on Friday 1 evening last, ending m Sir Joseph. Ward :- (then oh oath as a witness) leaving the .. committee and the room, was discussed by the House of Representatives last even- ', ing. .The .subject was brought up just : : ■;. after the House Tesumed at 7.30. ■ • Sir Joseph Ward asked what position ■ . ft committee would be in which had de-_ i , tided to report circumstances connected :■"'.•,with its'procedure.to the House, and had ■'. not yot done so. "On the Publio Accounts Committee on Friday," he. con- ;... tiniied, "a difference of opinion arose, and Us an outcome it was decided in connec- , tion with a statement made by myself, to report the matter to the-House. Uh- \ ■'. dor the Standing Orders a matter of that ,'.'.. sort should'come immediately before the /House. I caiiio here on Friday nieht '..-■■' expecting that it would come before tho ':■■■:' House, but.it did not." He should not : ;be in the position of not having ■ the deci- -'•■'•" eion of the House, on a matter of that . ,-iind. / ■Mγ. Speaker: I don't think the circumstance that the report has not been pre- •: ;: sented interferes in any way with his ;;■ rigKts and privileges on that committee. ■\. 'Sir Joseph Ward: Does that mean that if I choose I may go back to that corns'- mittee and not have that matter raised . '.'until it is dealt with by the House. ■':•;.-.., Mr. Speaker: I don't think that the . matter will be brought up in the comi . ..-inittee ngain. • ' '■■ ■■•■'■■ ■' ■ ■ . •■•'.-; ■•:..' Tho'Hon. W. F. Massey: I must take .'•';■,•; ' theresppnsibility for the matter not com- ■ ; ing up on Friday evening. I don't think ( . '• it ought to come up in tho evening.' The _ I proper time for these reports is in the '-'■V•'/•afternoon. I believe there was an under- '.'.■■■?!,' standing that it should come .up to-mor-('---•■_-.rotir. '••-.■■ : .•. ■ . ; ; ;;J-C /'..Sir. J. -Ward: Not so far as'l'am con- ,'. > '-.'serried. i- X'' Mr.". Massoyi Not so far as you are •''. : ;»Vioncerned. ;'•■.■;.'.'' .-'■.• -Information Wanted. N•-."'•'. Sir Joseph W ar di What I want to,know ■'is whether I can go to that committee ;'-■■'• without having to deal with this matter \ as it has been referred to tho House. He : ■;■■;• continued that if this matter came before V- : >the committee on the following day in all V-'V-'probability that committee would do no and he-did not wish'to inter-

rupt the proceedings of tho committee. , V Mr. GV.-W. Eussell: Is it not a rule '7-' that where a dispute takes place in a "" '~,. committee of the House it is the duty of : -the chairman of that committee'to at "once report that matter to : the House ..:■;: exactly as if a.disturbance had taken ■ 'Vplnce while the House was sitting in •': '■-.> committee. '.■■'. ■.-'.. ,':V : '<'.Mr; Speaker: My opinion is that that ~l'^ : is so, that it is the duty of the chairman '. "•" of the committee of tho whole and the duty of tho chairman of any select com- .".•-■ lnittee, to report at once to the. Houso ; : . if any; member's ..privilege, has been at- . '■>; tacked or where a breach-of privilege bas occurred. Mr. J.,8. Hine (Stratford), chairman of tho' Public Accounts Committee, said ' ho ha'd only just arrived in. the House, .V; and id was his intention to go across the '; flpuse to Sir' Joseph Ward and nsk him ;.;-. if'.ho was agreeable to have tho report •' '•' '■' presented that night. ' ■ . :,:';'■. Tho Hon. W; F. \Massey (Prime Min- . 'c.lster) asked Sir.Joseph) Ward whether he : : -irould prefer fo have the matter postponed ■'.■-'•until the next day. / ■ f.°; Mr. J. B. Hine presented his report. '.' Following is tho text of the report:— ■' •>; "I have been direoted to report that at_ a '•meeting of the Public Ac<jounts Corarait- -. teo the Bight Honourable Sir Joseph ... Ward, on.being osked by the. Chairman .' to- answer a. question, used the words: . . 'That it was a downright piece of impertinence/ On being asked to withdraw the wotds. Sir Joseph Ward refused 1 to do so, and the words were ordered to ;bo • taken ' down, and to be reported to the House." '.">.' He moved that the report be laid upon ■'•' , the table. ..... '•"'■. An Omission Alleged. '•';■' ■ Sir Joseph Ward asked' whether' it was ■ right that the exact words complained of ehould bo in the report. The words com- ' \ plained of are not in the report. ./..--?■■ Mr. Hine: The words complained of, ;' 'which are.in the Teport, are: "A down- : right piece of impertinence." '■•■- fair Joseph Ward said this was a onesided statement. It was unfair. to him that the words which led up to' the words used by' him should be omitted. . Tho words used by the Chairman of the Committee wore not on the report. He asked ■ whether it was not'right that, the words .. -used by the Chairman should not be in the report.- He-hadnover heard of a report euch as this being presented. The Hon. James Allen: I don't think tho honourable gentleman should have any reason for complaint. What I suggest. . is that the report be sent to the committee, and that the committee be asked to: give the paragraph giving an account.*'of' what led up to the whole thing. , ; "Hβ; Would move- that if the honourable; mem-v ... ber for Awarna agreed to it. ,: fr.'. .; ; ;. : Sir Joseph Ward said he thought, hewas placed in a very unfair.-position., 'He. Would quote the position in. spe.tiking-Tipon; tho matter, and he would leave it , entirely to the judgment., of "the.House. :\"-....\'.-'..'.'■'; Mr. Hino'raised.a: point'df' , p"rdet../.Sir.: Joseph Ward had"beon-the're as a sworn: . witness, and he'refused to'obey tho order- : of the chair as a witness. Was he within his rights in now debating tho matter before tho House? >—- . Mr. Speaker: I don't think that is a .point of order. It would deprive the' honourable gentleman of'his privileges in: the House in discussing the report. Sir Joseph Ward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 know tho honourable gentleman would deprive me of my-rights __. if he could. Fortunately he can't. It 13 ~ a decidedly one-sided and unfair report, and in some respects a unique one. Whatever the issue might be, he would :prefer that tho matter should be gone on with. =. ,j. •■.■"'■■ "What Terms?" Mr. A. M.,.Myers.(Auckland.East).said ho thoughtit was fair to Sir Joseph W ar( l that a full: account of what occurred leadling up to Sir Joseph Ward Baying what he did to- tho chairman ehould be before the' House, otherwise it would be impossible for the House to come to — • any decision. No one in tho position of Sir Joseph Ward should have been eddressed.in tho terms used by the chairman. ■'■'■ . Mr. Allen: What terms,? Mr. Myers: He asked him to reply to a question. It isn't exactly what he said but tho nasty way he said it. I speak impartially, and I would express my opinion even if it had teen adverse' to the HightvlHonouiable gentleman. There had been a good deal of sparring between the Minister for Finance- — , Mr. Allen.: No sparring at all. , Mr. Myers: Tho honourable gentleman iras insisting upon answers to queries that he had-put to Sir Josepln Wanft and because Honourable gentleman did not see his way clear to answer in the manner- tho Minister for Financo said ho should— . . • Mr. Allen: Yon are -ery unfair. ■Mr. Myers: I think I am perfectly jnsti- . fied ; . . , Mr. Allen: Ton had better get tho t'peWTitten report. ■■ ■ ' Mr. Myers-. I have 'lere the "Evening Post" report, and I may say it struck me nt the time that ,it was a very accurate report. It is headed "At Cross Purposes." 'Aftor.quotirig from. the..report, he said '■ the Minister for' Finance had made use of tho expression "only a trick." Mr. Allen: Who said that?

Mr. Myere: I-beg-pardon,-it waa Sir Joseph (Laughter.) Government members: Givo nn linbwfod aooount! '■ Mr, HJno; .Oh* be faui

HE REFUSES TO WITHDRAW.

Mr. Myers went on. to quote further from the newspaper report of the committee proceedings, to which ho had previously referred. Ho continued that the whole surrounding circumstances must be taken into consideration. Sir Joseph Ward, who had occupied the highest position at the will of tho people, was there (at the committee) practically on his trial, while certain statements were being- reviewed which, had been made on the floor of the House. Ono could readily understand that tho hon. gentleman felt his rposition keenly, and any criticisms, probably, he would feel more than anybody elso who was not particularly interested. Tho Minister for Finance was endeavouring to elicit from the right lion, gentleman answers to a certain series of questions. In the same position, ho (Mr. Myers) would have done the same. H<s contended that when these questions were put Sir Joseph WaTd. had a perfect rightto answer them as he deemed fit. For instance, ho wanted Sir Joseph "Ward to give an answer which the latter considered he was not entitled to give because he was not occupying the position of Minister for Finance. A Most Unfortunate Incident. It was a most unfortunate incident,, and he hoped that it would bo debated without heat. If the member for Stratford would. make the amende honourable, as ho (Mr. Myers) thought be should-(Gov-eminent laughter.) Mr. Myers said that he sincerely honed the matter would not be dealt with in. any heated or party spirit. , ' ■ . Mr. Malcolm: Why not follow the usual practice and withdraw the words. .A member: And apologise. iU Mr. Eraser: What did tho chairman of the committee say? Mr. Myers: Ho insisted upon Sir Joseph Ward answering.. Mr. Allen in a-' manner which would give satisfaction' to the chairman or to Mr. Allen.

•A Government member: Or refuse to answer.

Mr. Myers: Surely Sir Joseph Word should bo allowed to form his own judgment of a matter of this kind. The matter could easily be set right by the member for Stratford, who was au honourable man, taking the course he had suggested. It was not only that ho had used words, but the ncisty way'in which he said it. Mr. Allen: That is a very improper thing to say. Mr. Myers: I am sorry to hear that remark repeated. The Minister for Finance has Mmself to blame in this matter. . . If the hon. member for Stratford now got up in. his place in the House and expressed his regret, he was sure it would be accepted by the right hon. gentleman who represented Awama, and the- incident would then be allowed to close. _Mr. G. Witty (Eiccarton) said that the House was being asked to condemn one of its members unheard. Instead of the bare report furnished, there should be a full and detailed account of what took place. The matter should not be referred back to the committee, but a full Teport should be laid before the House that night. If noty ha hoped that the House would uphold the member for Awarna.

A Government member: Were you there? . - ' .

Mr. Witty said that Mr. Hine and Mr. Allen should have known bettor. Tho House must be coming very low indeed if such a thing could be done.

"For the Sake of Its Own Dignity." , The Hon. W. Fraser said that on reading of this incident in the papers he was very pained. Naturally ho was most concerned in tho principle involved. The Hous» had always held that if a member had used unparliamentary language .ho should withdraw it. Provocation by another member could not be pleaded as an excuse. Members who had used unparliamentary language had never refused to withdraw it. Hβ hoped that tho House would not listen for a moment to any such specious argument as that a member who considered that he had received some provocation should be allowed to use unparliamentary language and not withdraw it. For the sake of its own dignity, the House should decline to do anything of the kind.

Refusal to Withdraw. Sir Joseph Ward said he wished to tell the House what his position was. He had been a member of .Parliament for just on 25 years, sitting, under three different Speakers, and throughout all that time he had never been in conflict with the chair. He had been ruled out of order, but he had - always accepted the ruling of the chair _with equanimity. He had sat under eight Chairmen of Committees, and again he had had no trouble. Ho had spoken, in every iir.porfcant debate, and taken his part in, all the political strifes of the time. But he wished to tell the House what led up to the affair, but,he.wished to.say also that he was : not 'going to withdraw the words. He wanted-the House:to understand that. -,?-, I:noticed almost from the start of the proceedings/' he said, "that the chairmim ,was:;'not..-impartial, that the chairman showeda distinctbias, that fhte chairman 'showed..himself; to be -a-partisan 011 the '?ide'of .the Minister, for Finance, and of "the;Government,-and.a partisan against nie, that he ruled mo out.of order on n'ore .than one. occasion,; and upon each occasion ■ if it had been referred to'the Speaker of the Housb. he "would have been proved to'ljfl.wrong.".Hβ:said he.would cite the CCSB3 in. which ho had been ruled out of order. : . ■ ■ ' .-■ -Mr. Speaker ruled thnfc he wos not in order in doing .that, '■■.■" A. Point, of Order. Mr: G. W. Russell (Avon) raised a point Of. order that.the report of the committee did not state to whom the words ■were'-used.'. Mr. Speaker'held that it was quite clear that the words were used to the chairman of tho committee. Sir Joseph Ward: To make matters perfectly clear, I may explain that I referred to tho chairman. He complained that the chairman had allowed the Minister for.Finance to put questions to witnesses, and allowed hearsay evidence which was favourable for tho time being. to the Minister for Finance, which ought not to have been allowed. Mr. Speaker: Has this to do with this question? Sir Joseph Ward: My remarks were the outcome of tho day's proceedings. Mr. Speaker ruled that Sir Joseph Ward must confine himself to the actual question preceding the remark. Sir Joseph Ward said he would do so. Ho went on to quote from tho "Post" newspaper report. Resinning, ho said he had nover known, a chairman attempt to interrupt a speaker who was answering a question and, referring specifically to tho time. Ho eaid tho chairman had shown distinct bias and had been offensive. While ho personally always regretted coming into conflict with his fellow members, he declined to withdraw that observation because ho regarded the question as having been put to him offensively. In a Political Sense. The Hon. W. H. Herrics asked whether it was in order to use such expressions as "offensive" and "biased." Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. member is making use of theso words in a political sense, and tlint they are not a charge against the hon. gentleman in his private capacity. Sir Joseph Ward: I am not referring to the hon. gentleman's private capacity.' I never do. I want to say that personally I objected to the ruling of the chairman right throughout. I recognise that he was politically biased, and * politically offensive, and on this.particular occasion, when tho ruling of tho chairman was not in.question, atinninled to dictate (o me as to how I shoulcl answer, in a noliticalLγ biased way, I looked upon tlmt as

being exactly as I characterised it at the ' time. Tho whole tiling 'was dono offensively from tho eUvt in my opinion. The Hon. W. 11. Hcrries: Politically offensively ? Sir Joseph Ward: Yt'S, politically offensively. I have no personal feeling against the lion, member or any other member of the Houso. He added that tho position in which ho found himself was not singular. Sir Win. Russell on one occasion had declined to withdraw words used in Committee- of the whole. He believed that ho had been treated unfair- j lv and improperly by the chairman of the committee. Hβ thought that it was the chairman who ought to apologise and not himself. Having placed his view of this matter before the House, he was quite prepared to bow to the judgment of the Houso. The Rule of the Chair, Mr. A. S. Malcolm said that the House was not at present called upon to enter into the merits of the chairman's ruling. What had to bo considered , was whether tho member for Awarua should have accepted the chairman's ruling. The member for Awarua himself, when leader of the House, had repeatedly urged upon other members the necessity of obeying a chairman's ruling or the ruling of Mr. Speaker,,no matter how unjust to himself ho might consider a decision to bo. Unquestionably Sir J. Ward should have withdrawn the words complained of. Numerous remedies were open to an aggrieved member. No Chairman of tho Houso or Sir. Speaker would have tolerated the words used by the member for Awarua. Sir Joseph Ward: No Chairman of tho House would have said such a thing. Mr. Malcolm said that that was not the question. Mr. K. M'Callum (Wairau) begged Mr. Hinc to withdraw his motion, and contended that a witness on oath must bo in a position of absolute immunity. What ho said was in the highest degree privileged. This was the position of Sir Joseph Ward on the Public Accounts Committee. ~ How could the House daro to say to a witness on oath what he should or should not say? If the member for Stratford would not express regret to Sir Joseph Ward, let the matter drop so that to-morro#_morning these members might go back to their work. He asked, as a point of order, whether the' words spoken by Sir Joseph Ward could constitute a breach, seeing that . they were spoken by a witness on oath. Mr. Speaker ruled that the words used by Sir Joseph Ward were not evidence in any sense, but an expression of opinion. A Chairman's Duty. The Hon. W. H. Herriea said that h<. regretted that this matter had been brought forward. It seemed to him a trumpery storm in a teacup. Having come forward, however, it must be discussed. He disagreed both with tho member for Awarua and with the member who had last spoken. Supposing a witness said to a judge: "You havo no right to ask mo that question," that witness would be committed for contempt of court. That was the legal position. As to the political sense, he believed that he had had more experience of committee work than any other member of tho House, and he had continually heard the Chairman caution a witness. Ho had repeatedly heard the Chairman tell a witness that ho must answer either yes or no. He knew nothing about tho circumstances of the' present case, but it was part of the Chairman's duty to warn o witness that he was not answering a question. He had heard it done 20 or 30 times. He had sometimes himself had to warn a witness that he was not answering a question. • The member 'for lAwarua knew from his experience that it was done continually. Hβ did not know whether the Chairman in this case was right or not—ho did not know enough of the circumstances—but if he thought that the'witness was not answering a question, he had a right—he would be 6orry to hear anyone deny that the Chairman had a Tight—to warn the witness that ho was not giving an answer.. Sir Joseph Ward: Tho difference is that, I did answer.

Mr. Herries:- I understand that tho right hon. gentleman would deny tho right of a chairman to soy whether a witness is answering properly or not.

Mr. M'Callum: He is not a judge. Mr. Hemes: He is Chairman of tho highest court in tho land, and tho hon. member who came from Wairau knew well that if tho right lion, gentleman had acted similarly in a. court of law

An hon. member: He'd.have got six months.

Mr. Hemes: He would have been committed for contempt of court. It is useless for the hon. gentleman, to prevaricate or quibble. The high standard of committees ought to bo maintained, and if tho House is going to refuse the right to a chairman of a committee to warn witnesses and control the committee of which ho is chairman, it will bo a sorry day for this House, because the whole of the committee work will go to rack and ruin. He thought it was very unwise of the honourable member for Awarua to submit himself as a witness il he thought the, Chairman wae showing political bias, as he said the Chairman was, right through. the proceedings. If lie thought the Chairman was offensive— politically offensive—he was very unwise to submit himself as a witness, but once having done so.it was his duty to submit to tho ruling, of the Chairman. It was impossible for the House to make fish 01 one and flesh of another. Tho right honourable gentleman had held high positions in the country, and ho probably thought at tho time that the Chairman was hostilo to him. But it was the duty of every member of the House to uphold a Chairman even if he made a mistake. The words used had been ruled by Mr. Speaker to be unparliamentary, and they would have been out of order in. tho House, and even yet the member for Awarua ehould withdraw them. Tho member for Awania wa3, he said, not to say thin-skinned, but he had not the thick hide some of the members on the Government side, who had been long in Opposition, had developed. He was too apt to fly up at the first taste of the iron entering into his soul, which the late Opposition, had had to eiiSuro for a very long time. They had had to put up with what they considered political bias, and they I'cver said anything. (Laughter.) They bided their time, and their time had come. He hoped the right honourable gentleman would not be so ready to see political bias from tho Government side. Hβ did not think such was intended by the member for Stratford or tho Minister for l'inance. Tho storm in a teacup ought now to be allowed to subside, and the House ehould get on, with other business. The Hon. D. liuddo (Kaiapoi) complain- . «l that tho report was incomplete, in that il did not contain what led up to tho question. He urged that tho 'duty of the chairman should have beeu rather to protect a witness from a too insistent questioner, rather than to seek to compel him to answer as the questioner desired. Hid he been in tho position of tho member for Atvarua ho would certainly have objected to anyono tolling him to "answer Btraight.'J He suggested that tho Prime Minister should move that the report be referred back to tho committee, and it could be buried there. A Good Sparring Match. Dr. A. K. Newman. (Wellington East) said the real position was this: That Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Allen were havmg a good sparring match with the gloves oft,, and when two men were in that position they would kick any dog that oamo around. On this occasion the chairmin was tho dog being kicked. It was only justico to say that the chairman had tried to act honorably, and play the square part. Ho (Dr. Newman) was surprised at the attack mnde upon the chairman by the member for Auckland East, Mr. Myers. That honourable member must know in his heart that it was an ungenerous and unjustifiable attack. Tho member for Stratford, ho admitted, was not in his opinion an ideal chairman, but he had tried honestly to do his best. H« did not seo how any committee could exist when a. member used such language to the chairman as this. Ho hoped Sir Joseph AVartl would piit himself in the right and withdraw tho words.

The Hon. J. Allen's Views. The Hon. Jas. Allen said that if Sir Joseph Ward had written tn the committee asking leave to withdraw the words, (lie committee would ho doubt have rescinded its resolution. The position before the House was that either the control of the chair must bo upheld or the rule of tho chair considered valueless. Whalover llr. Hino-did as chairman, whatever ho said, or whatever his action, hnd been, did not coino under consideration at that time. If (ho Speaker hsid allowed such words in the House as Sir Joseph Ward liner used at (he Public Accounts Committee, wliut would becowu of the Home.?.

If the Chairman of Committees allowed such words in Committeo, what would become of tho committee? Exactly tho same thing applied to tho ordinary chairman of a select committee. His rule had to bo upheld. The.re was a process by which his rule could 1» challenged, anil that process was open to any member of tho committee. When the resolution was moved in tho committee, Mr. Allen continued, not a dissentient voice was raised. Mr. Myers: What was tho good? I Mr. Allen: Did any one member raise his voice in dissent? No. Sir J. Ward: I was there and I did not raise any dissent either. Mr. Allen said he was eorry that tho lion, gentleman had not withdrawn tho words. It had been said that tho chairman had been biased. It was due to Mr. Hino to say that, throughout tho whole of the inquiry, so far as ho (Mr. Allen) could see, he had not shown bias. He called upon the member for 'Auckland East to say fairly whether ho thought the chairman biased. An Unbiased Chairman. Mr. Myers: I said he ueed the vroris offensively. Mr. Allen: I call upon the member for Auckland East to say honestly whether Mr Hino has acted in a biased way. I say, knowing Mr. Hine as I do, and knowing his strong feelings, he has controlled that committee in a very unbiased way. The member for Auckland says tho question, was put in, an offensive way. Mr. Hanan: So it was. Mr. Allen sai<l that it was sometimes necessary to put questions incisively. Ho proceeded to quote from a report of tho proceedings of tho committee. Mr. Russell: Why did not the chairman, produce that? Air. Allon: Hβ 6ent for it as toon as this came- on. Sir J. Ward: Don't you think I should huve had that when I was speaking? Mr. Allen said that Sir Joseph Ward could have got the report, as he had got it, by asking for it. He went on to state that Sjr Joseph Ward submitted himself as a witness of his oivn free will. No one asked him to. Having done 60, he was submitted to examination by various members of the committeo. Mr. Allen went on to detail the references to the Consolidated Fund which gave rise to the dispute. ' The Hon. R. MlCenzie contended that the Minister was introducing matter foreign to the discussion, but the Speaker ruled against him. Mr. Allen quoted in extenso from the official report tho references made by Sir Joseph Ward and himself to the Consolidated Fund and the subsequent discussion, as reported in The Dominion on Saturday, The Official Report. Sir Joseph Ward raised a point of OTder. He said that the rules of the Houso required that copies of evidence should be sent to all witnesses. In the present case the evidence had not been sent to him, though it had been Eent to tho Minister for Finance. Mr. Speaker said that the proper course was for the clerk of a committee to send copies of evidence to witnesses and members. Sir Joseph Ward: The Minister has that first. Mr. Speaker: It must be taken for what it is worth. Mr. Allen: I take tho report to be as accurate, if not more accurate, than the newspaper reports. Finally the Minister submitted that the hon. gentleman would consult his own dignity and establish himself more strongly in the opinion of the Houso if ho retracted the words that he must know ought never to have been used to the Chairman of a Committee, i An Amendment. The Hon. E, M'Kenjio (Motueka) said .ho regretted that tho report was not referred back to the committeo, for it was obviously an incomplete and one-sided report. He admitted that tho words complained of ought not to have been used, but ho also held that tho chairman of a select .committee had no right to bo offensive to a contumacious witness. Ho had a course open to him; he could brim* tho witness before the House. All the newspaper reports, which were quite ' as likely to bo correct as that of the official recorder, agreed that tho chairman used •the word "straight." Ho was convinced that the chairman must have been oit'ensive, and that the report was onesided. He would move as an amendment that tho report be sent back to tho committee.

Sir Joseph Ward raised a. point of order. Ho said that in the official shorthand report of the proceedings, which he had just received, the remark of the chairman ,to which he.took exception did not appear. And the words he (Sir Joseph Ward) had used were not correctly reported. Hβ raised the mattor as a point of order. 'Mr. Speaker: I take it that it is the duty of the chairman of the committee to explain.

Mr. J. Colvin (Euller) raised anothor point of order that the evidence had not been produced, although it was available, when the report was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker said that everything: relating to the report,, should have been presented.

Mr. J. B. Hino said he had sent for the shorthand report of the evidence owing to Sir Joseph Ward having referred to it. Without leaving the Chamber, he had asked a messenger to obtain the report. ' The report was brought to him, and he took it that it was a-true record of what happened. It might not suit all honourable members; but it was a true record, none the less. Sir Joseph Ward: Is this the whole of the evidence? Mr. Hine: I take it it is correct. An honourable member: Is it correct? ilr. Hino: I haven't seen it. I handed it over to Mr. Allen soon after I got it. Sir Joseph Ward said the threo newspapers reported distinctly the words to which he took exception. The words "Answer straight." Mr. Allen: The use of that word is not reported in The Dominion. The Expression "Sat Upon." Mr. G. W. Eussell (Avon) said that the' ■report of the committee was un-British. There should have been brought forward a full statement of everything leading up to the question. The Minister for Fimnco said, "Head Tire Dominion." Ho (Mr. Eussell) said he wished he could read Tut, Dominion. The report would show that on live separate occasions the chairman had "sat upon" Sir Joseph Ward. The Hon. W. F. Massey rose to a point of order. He asked whether it was right that an honourable member should say that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee had five times sat upon Sir Joseph Ward. Mγ. Speaker ruled tlio expression "eat upon" out of order. Mr. Russell thereupon withdrew it. Ho said, however, that the Chairman was refusing to allow Sir Joseph Ward, who was practically on hi# trial-on a charge of having bribed Constituencies, to defend himself. Ho said ho would read from The Dominion newspaper, which could be taken as perfectly unbiased and impartial. He quoted from the report, and said the effect of it was to show that the Chairman had refused to allow Sir Joseph Ward to read extracts from his own speeches in the House to throw light on the subject matter of the inquiry. Ho read again from TuE Dominion report, reading several statements which ■ were nor in the official report. If the House had had the report as it appeared in Tun Dominion before it, he said", it would have been moro able to form, nn intelligent opinion on the point. He supported the amendment.

The Hon. AV. P. Masjoy (Prime Minister) said ho wns not goin? to difcuss tho question. Ho had risen to ask tho ineml»v for Awnriia what altitiul& lie proposed to . tako with regard to the amendment. If tho hononrablo gentleman wns anxious to have the- report referred back to the committee, ho would suggest to tho member for Jtotucka that ho should withdraw his motion, with a view to tho Minister for Finance moving a similar motion. If the member for Awnrna were not in ngreement tho House could deal with the ease.

Sir Joseph Ward said this was throwing a heavy onus upon him. Ho would not object to flio amendment, but ho.wanted it to be clearly understood that lie would not bo put in the position of going before that committee to eat liumblo pie. He did not mind endeavouring to come to an honourable settlement there. The Hon. E. M'Kenzio withdrew 'his amendment. Mr. J. A. Fanan (Invercirgill) declared that certain of the rulings by the chairman were incorrect. Hon. members: What? Mr. Hamm: 1 am prepared'to prove it. Ho was prevented by a point of order from referring further lo tlio ruling. The Eon. A, Li H.erdinajj {Jlinjster

for Justice) moved an amendment that the report bo referred back to tho committee.

All Agrec-With Reservations. The Hon. J. Allen said ho would support tho amendment that the report should go back, but always provided that it should not be accepted as being a slight upon, the chairman of the committee or upon himself. Mr. M'Callum: Nor upon Sir Joseph Ward. Mr. Allen: The honourable gentleman is not going to put words into my mouth. It had been, he said, tho intention of members of tho Government party that tho report should go back to the committee, and that the case .should be settled there. He hoped reason would prevail, and that the trouble would bo all settled at the committee. ■ Mr. J. B. lliuo, in reply, said ho had interviewed the member lor Awarua on Friday evening, and informed him that he would not report to the House in his absence at Dunedin. Referring to the main question ho said it was not in keep? ing with the dignity of the Chairman of the Committee or the dignity of tho House if such a transgression of tho ruling ot the Chairman were to be overlooked. It was not a personal matter. So far as ho was concerned he had endeavoured to do what he considered to be a fnir thing without favour. It was quite evident that there existed in the minds of members of the other side a certain bias towards him, and he was rather inclined to think that this clouded their vision so that it was impossible for them to think he was acting fairly. A lot of stress was laid upon the fact that he asked the member for Awanift to answer a question "straight," but the word "straight" was not used until after tho words complained of were used by Sir Joseph Ward. It was only in the endeavour to pacify Sit Joseph Ward that he had used tho word "straight." Tho report of the Committee had been approved by the unanimous wish of the committee, even by those members who had spoken of "bias"-in the House. Their attitiido on tho committee, where they hod an opportunity of _ challenging tho report, had been quite different. As chairman <f the committee, ho was not fioin? to put himself in the position of bringing down a Teport. by the unanimous wish of the committee and then having it sent back to be nullified. He wished to make that plain, and he would not support any proposal to weaken the intention of the committee. He/took it that tho rulings of all chairmen of committees must be upheld. Sir Joseph Ward said he had made no bargain with Mr. Hine at the interview leferred to because he recognised that he could not go back to the committee while tho resolution stood until it was referred to the House. He also wished it to lie made quite clear that in going back to the committee he kept a free hand, and if the good soase of the committee could not settle the question, it would have to come back asain to tho House. Mr. Guthrie; That means another night of it, Tho amendment was carried on the voices.