THE HINE CHARGES.

Evening Star, Issue 14511, 1 November 1910, Page 2

THE HINE CHARGES.

COUNCIL’S COMMITTEE STT ON ALLEGATIONS AGAINST AIR AIACDONALD. (From Our Pabliameotaie Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 1. The Select Committee of the Legislative Council sat last night to hear the charge brought by Air Hine, At.i’., against the Hon. T. Kennedy Macdonald, but, as is detailed below; no evidence was taken at this sitting. The Committee comprised the Hons. J. B. Callan (chairman), Dr Findlay (Attorney-General), Hons. J. R. Sinclair, 0. Samuel, C. AI. Lake. J. E. JenkirAon, T. Thompson, J. Rigg, and Captain Tucker. Air M. Alyers appeared on behalf of Mr Him, and Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C. (with Mr Sharp), for the Hon. T. K. Macdonald. Mr Myere, assuming that no evidence would be taken, that night, suggested that

he should bring ids witnesses the following right. The hearing would only take two sit lirgs. The Chairman suggested that Mr Hine be heard at once. Mr Myers indicated that Mr Hina might not necessarily bo called by him, as Air Bine could only tender hearsay evidence. Ha had other witnesses. Mr Skerrett expressed disappointment that Mr Myers out not intend to go on at once. He had hoped that mo inquity would have been finished that evening Dr Findlay suggested that Air Hine bo called.

Mr Myers; I don’t think it is r.ecessaiy to rah Air Hine at ali. I don’t intend to call him to give evidence which would be inadmissible in a court. Dr Findlay suggested that Mr Hine might jxplain the innuendo underlying the charge. The charge might not convey implicitly any charge. Obviously the Committee were anxious to ascertain what the innuendo was, and it would bo as well for Mr Myers to explain it. Mr Myers said he proposed to call evidence in regard to two matters —fust, the sale of Air Leigh’s property at Nainai to the Government, which sale was conducted by Mr Macdonald or his firm in 13& L " Wo say,” added Air Alyers, “ that he received from the vender a commission on the sale of that property. Second, we make a similar allegation in regard to the sale of a portion of Afr and Mrs Love’s estate at Waipetu. near Hutt, either at the end of 1905 or the beginning of 1906.” The Chairman: Then your charge is simply that Air Alacdonald received commission for the sale- of those estates? , Air Alyers:' Wo do go somewhat further than that, and say that those properties were sold aT very high prices to the Government. The Chairman; Aleaning thereby anything? Air Alyers : No, sir. The whole point is this; Air Hino's submission is that it is wrong for members of either House of Parliament to act as agents and receive remuneration on the sale of properties to the Crown. Dr Findlay : That is your charge? Mr Alyers: That is the inference. Dr Findlay : Counsel has said that these sales took place at very' high prices. Is it implied that these high prices were due to any collusion between tho Government and the vendor or his ageut? Air Alyers: We charge no collusion , against the Government. Dr Findlay; We take it there is no charge of impropriety against tho Government or any officers of the Government? Air Alyers: In connection with these two charges, no. Tho Chairman: Do you mean that tho price paid for the Love Estate was too high? Over the market value of the land at"the time? Air Myers: Not necessarily. What Air Hine asks should be said is this: that it is 'not right for members to act as agents for remuneration upon sales to tho Govern-

ment. The Chairman; That is what you say is wrong. Mr Myers: Yes; once the principle is admitted it may lead to a great deal of wrong being done. Dr Findlay suggested that the charge was limited merely to one of the impropriety of a member of Parliament acting as agent in the way stated. The facts might bo admitted, and the Committee could consider the question of ethics. Mr Myers: 1 don’t think all the facts will be admitted. Dr Findlay said that if no impropriety was suggested against the Government or my of the Government’s officers, the proceedings might be shortened by finding wliat was common ground between Messrs .Myers and Skerrett. Mr Myers: I think we should have to rail a witness or two before wc can shorten proceedings in that way. Mr Sinclair: Does Mr Myers want to make any point by his allusion to high prices? The Chairman; I asked him that, and ue said No. Mr Myers: I do want at the present

stage to answer that question directly, i said that there was no imputation against

the Government or any Government officers. \ The Chairman; I think you should tell '“-the Committee whether the price was higher than should have been paid under the circumstances: whether it was higher than the market price of the land at the time.

Mr Myers: It would be better to hear evidence on that point than press me to an answer to-day. The Chairman; We want something to investigate and inquire into. Mr Myers: You are inviting me now to say the very thing I think I should not say at the present stage. The Chairman: Then wo do not know at present what we should inquire into. Mr Rigg suggested that the inquiry could not be complete unless the Committee had Mr Sine’s evidence before them. The scope of the inquiry was not to be decided by counsel, but by the Committee. As Mr lline had made the charges the Committee could compel him to give evidence. If he would take the opportunity now the Committee could'in a short time find out what, was meant by the chargee, and might possibly find it unnecessary to call furthei jvidence at all. Dr Findlay suggested that although Mr Myers might not wish to call Mr Rine, Mr S'kerrett might, or the Committee might find it their duty or privilege to do so. Mr Myers; I quite concede that the Committee may want to call Mr Hine, but I apprehend that they won't want to do so at this stage. Mr Skerrett: I regret to hear that Mr Myers does not intend to call Mr Hine, in order that the Committee may hear the genesis of the charges, and their precise nature. I may inform the Committee that 1 am much more inquisitive than Mr Myers, and if ho does not call Mr Hine 1 shall, in order to see how and where his information was acquired, and in what manner he deemed it his public duty to bring this before a committee of the House of Parliament. At first Mr Myers said there was a tag to the charge that a member of Parliament had acted as agent, and that the property was sold at "too high a price, but in answer to members of the Committee I understood him to say that he disavowed charging any collusion between any member of the Government or any officer connected with the Land Purchase Department, in connection with the sale. If that is correct I submit that it would be puerile and childish for any committee to set themselves up as a com mittee of land agents to determine the value of a property at any particular time. I suggest that it would be unworthy of the dignity of this Committee and their responsibilities that they should in the face of that admission embark into an inquiry as to whether a bargain was good or a bad on* on the part of the Government. With reference to the main charge,,! do not propose to say anything at all, but with reference to the ethics of the charge, that is a matter for the Committee. I want to point out that there appears to be only ono matter before fhaOmamittee —viz., whether a , common agent who happens to be a member

of Parliament is excluded by that fact from any dealings with the Crown. It certainly appears to me that ttue matter could be disposed of in a very short time. I extremely regret that Mr Myere and Mr Bine will not proceed at once. Mr Myers: The circumstances will require consideration to ascertain bow the general principle will apply; that is, the general principle that Mr Hine is contending for. V.

The Chairman intimated that on the following night the Committee would hear evidence and cross-examination. There would bo no counsels’ addresses.

In regard to this counsel concurred The Committee then adjourned.