DIRECT CHALLENGE

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 84, 8 April 1936, Page 12

DIRECT CHALLENGE

MR. REESE'S HONOUR

REPLY TO MR. SULLIVAN

TEST OF SUPREME COURT

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. A further reply to the Hon. D. G. Sullivan (Minister of Railways) was issued by Mr. .D. Ecesc this afternoon, j Mr. Reese said: — "The Minister of Railways says he had nothing to withdraw in connection with the statements he made in the House last week concerning members of the Railways Board. Mr. Sullivan clearly has limitations of generous impulse when, after attacking a man's honour, he says he has nothing to withdraw and still maintains that he was speaking impersonally. He apparently declines my challenge to disclose to the House and to the country my reports on the Mamaku sawmill. Further, he still alleges that he has been supplied by the Department with figures showing, first, that my statements were wrong and that the Mamaku mill was able to produce timber as cheaply as other mills were and, secondly, that the closing of the Mamaku mill has cost the country thousands of pounds. I am prepared to stand by my reports and allow the people of this country to judge, first, whether my facts be correct; secondly, whether my judgment be correct; and, thirdly, whether I handled the matter with fairness.

"From last night's debate in the House it is apparent that I shall get no further redress in this matter. I therefore challenge the Minister to repeat outside'the House, and thus not under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege, the same statements, accompanied by the same suggestions and innuendoes, as he made in the House on the second reading of the Railways Bill.

"With the allegation that no attack was made on my personal honour I am unable to agree. No doubt some of the members of Mr. Sullivan's party, many of whom I know and respect, will feel compelled to attach some belief to his earlier charges in view of his further statements published this morning. So seriously do I regard the matter that I prefer it to be adjudicated upon by an impartial referee, such as the Supreme Court. I feel that a stand must be taken to prevent, if possible, unwarranted attacks upon public men implying discreditable motives.

"The Minister is reported to have stated that he never alleged that Mr. D. Reese had been tendering against the Mamaku mill. Mr. Forbes interjected: .'I asked you, a question about that and you said he had tendered,' to which Mr. Sullivan's reply was: 'I agree that,there is no evidence that Mr. Reese or his firm' tendered, but I do say that the West Coast Sawmillers' Association had tendered and I presumed that his firm was a member of the association.' The statement that the West Coast Sawmillers' Association tendered against the.Mamaku mill is not true. The Minister's Departmental officers knew that that statement is not true. Had the Minister inspected the Departmental records he must, if a reasonable man, have been forced to the conclusion that he could not honestly make such a statement. I do not feel inclined to continue a public controversy of this sort with the Minister of Railways, and as far as I am concerned the matter may stand." '