PRIVILEGE CASE MEMBER FOR WAIRAU INVESTIGATION BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 28, 1 August 1912, Page 7

PRIVILEGE CASE MEMBER FOR WAIRAU INVESTIGATION BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

The Committee of Privilege set up by the House of Representatives to enquire into the publication of a letter sent by Win. Sinclair to Wm. Carr on 25th March last, reflecting on the character of Mr. R. M'Callum, member for Wairau, xesumed its sittings this morning. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. Atkinson, appeared for Mr. M'Callum. Mr. J. A. Hanan presided. At the outset the chairman read the order of reference to the committee and explained that the committe'had no intention of going into the merits of the case. They proposed to enquire into the manner of the publication of the letter. Mr. Sinclair, who was first called as a ■witness, said he did not desire to be represented by counsel. He did not wish to conceal anything. Later on he proposed to call the member for Wang'anui^ to whom a copy of the letter in the casfa was sent by witness. The original of the letter (of which a copy was Bent to Mr. Veitch) was written to William Carr. Carr was a client of witness, and the letter was privileged. Tho covering letter forwarding the copy to Mr. Veitch was marked "private and confidential." That, be submitted, was also privileged. He claimed that as an elector he had a right to write to a member of Parliament, Iris intention being to preserve the purity of elections. It was his intention to' present a petition to Parliament on his own account asking that the judgment of the court might be reviewed with a view to seeing whether it was in conformity with, the law of England. By the passing of a special Act this could .be achieved. With all due deference to their Honours the Judges, he submitted that it was erroneous in point of law. The Chairman interrupted witness, and pointed out to him that he had merely been called to give evidence, THIRTY-NINE COPIES. In reply to Mr. Skerrett, witness admitted that he had in all sent out to members of Parliament thirty-nine copies of the letter to Carr. Mr. Skerrett : Were you requested by Mr. Carr (who was one of the petitioners in the Wairaii enquiry) to make a report to him on the case? k | Witness : No. Was your retainer still existing? — 1 consider it was; it had not been withdrawn. You are not aware- of its -having been .withdrawn ? — No. Has it since been withdrawn ? — No. Have yon any further facts which have not been put before the Election Court? — What particulars do you refer to? Relating to any facts of the petition. — Yes, I have. Well, I will not pursue the point further. Your sending of the letter to members of Parliament was tout act? — Yes. Independent of any instructions from your client? — Quite so. Mr. Sinclair subsequently explained „that in sending out the * copies of the division list he had taken the names of those who had voted with the Reform Party on the no-confidence motion in the February session. Mr. Veitch since turned out to be a free lance, but he thought the member could be trusted, as the letter vras marked "private and conifidential." MR. VEITCH CALLED. William Veitch, member for WanganuL -was called by Mr. Sinclair, and admitted handing the copy of the enclosure he had received to Mr. M'Callum. Questioned as to why he had retained the letter for a certain time before handing it to Mr. M'Callum, he said that ne bi ought it with him from .Wanganui, and gaVe it to Mr. M'CaUnm the first time he met him in Wellington in Parliament Bnildings. • To Mr. Skerrett, Mr. Veitch said that he considered the document made grave reflections on a fellow member. MEMBER FOR WAIRAU. Richard M'Callum gave evidence Lhat he received the document from Mr. ,Veitch on a Wednesday evening. In reply to Mr. Lang, witness said he had heard of the letter previously. He knew there was a covering letter. To Mr. Fraser : He did not consider the enclosure handed to him was private and confidential, and he so informed Mr. Veitch.. Mr. Atmore : If the words "private and confidential" are always to be respected, would it not be possible* to make infamous attacks on anyone? 4 Witness : There is no privilege attaching to a libellouß document. NO RESPONSIBILITY. The Chairman said that Mr. Carr had teen called as a witness in the case, and had written as follows to the Chairman under date Blenheim, 26th July, 1912 :— " Shy— l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of ypur communication of 18th inst., requesting my attendance at the enquiry of the Privilege Committee on Ist prox/ to give evidence re the Eublication of a letter written by Wilam Sinclair to me on 25th March last. In reply, I beg to say that, while I have every desire to treat the committee with courfceßy and to facilitate its enquiries, 1 cannot see my way clear to attend peramally at my own, expense in Wellington on the date named, especially in reference to a matter in which I claim to be in nowise concerned. I desire to say, with the utmost emphasis, that whatever our personal views may be relative to thi conduct of the Wairau election, or thf^decision of the Court in the election petition case, neither I nor the other petitioners have been in any way party or privy to the publication of the letter, of 25th March referred to, and they and I disclaim any responsibility in the matter.— Yours, etc., "WM. CARR." ON HIS DEFENCE. After considerable argument, in which the Chairman pointed out that the House had already declared the publication of the letter a breach of privilege, Mr. Sinclair said that it was useless having a trial after a hanging. The committee, however, ruled that >Jr. Sinclair would have to confine nis ■utterances tc th« question ol publication, the only matter included in tne order of reference. Mr. Sinclair said he hoped he would have an opportunity to argue before the House that a breach of privilege had not been committed. He claimed that ;t letter marked "private and confidential" shonld not have been circulated ; it should 'have been destroyed by the person who received it. The Chairman drew from Mr. Sinclair that ho had written the letter in the interest of the publio good. "Why, then," asked Mr. Hanan, "did you mv poe» any confidence? Why did you not treat all members alike?" Mr, Sinclair j For this reascta. Mr. M'Callum belonged to what was called the Liberal Party. I thought that my desire for the public good was moto likely lo bo achieved by getting the support of those who were not associated with him. (Laughter.) Mr. Sinclair, quoted authorities,. u a^

great length with a view to showing that there was no "publication," because the letter was privileged. MR. SKERRETT'S SUBMISSIONS. Mr. Skerrett submitted that the letter was not privileged ; it could not be held to be privileged in a Court of law. It was not only abusive, but it contained a scurrilous attack on Mr. M'Callum. In more than one place it not only accused Mr. M'Callum of committing perjury, but of "bare, brazen, unblushing and callous" lying. Counsel also quoted such expressions as "the foul and deadly stream of lies," and others of a like character. Privilege could only be used in temperately and properly promoting some private 'interest, or in temperately and properly promoting some public interest. It could never be used to cloak or cover the making of charges of crime or personal misconduct against anybody. As> to the words "private and confidential," he said it would be a monstrous proposition if a person could circulate gross charges against another by merely affixing those two words to a communi-' cation. If it was to be conceded there would be no limitation to such a publication. He declined to accept Mr. Sinclair's statement that he was not animated by malice against Mr. M'Callum. In deciding the question, the relation of the parties and the whole circumstances had to be taken into account. The committee then deliberated, in private.