DEMOCRAT PART!

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 2 October 1936, Page 6

DEMOCRAT PART!

CLAIM BY ORGANISER

ELECTION FINANCES J MR T. C. A. HISLOP’S EVIDENCE ( (United Press Association) ' WELLINGTON, Ist October. In his evidence taken on commission at Wellington as one of the defendants in the claim made at Auckland by Harry Charles Baulf against officials of the former Democrat Party for the balance of salary and expenses' allegedly owing to him as 'Auckland organiser for the party, Mr T. C. A. Hislop, of Wellington, stated that he had not been consulted as to Mr Baulf’s appointment, nor was he concei’ned in the business organisation of the party. He received a cheque for £3250, which was paid into a trust account for party pur-

poses. The sum of £IOOO he received in personal payment to recompense him for financial loss incurred in a six months’ tour. Mr Hislop said that he personally was a heavy loser finandally as a result of his part in the election campaign. “I am a solicitor of Wellington. I have been joined as a defendant in this action,” Mr Hislop’s statement commenced. “I have had no information supplied to me as to the grounds upon which I have been joined. I know the plaintiff, and as far as I am aware he acted as organiser in the Auckland Province. I personally, however, do not know anything about the terms of his appointment, or when he was appointed. During my tour in the Auckland Province, he was sent with me by the organisation to various places where I was to address meetings. I personally, however, had nothing to do with his appointment in 1 any way, nor was I at any time consulted in connection with it. “According to the statement of claim, he was appointed in October, 1934. I became the leader of the party in 1935. I was elected at a| conference of candidates held in Wellington in September, 1935. Prior to this meeting I had taken no part in , the work of the Democrat Party other than taking part in two or three small j conferences with people interested : with a view to considering the general I political situation. The Democrat ■ political organisation was a body that j had been formed long before 1935. j It was entirely distinct from the candi- j dates—its function was to look after j the whole of the business side. My ! function as leader was to act as lead-,

er of the candidates in the field, and j in that capacity to' address meetings j throughout the country. This I did, j and at no time took any part in the j work of the organisation as such. All j arrangements for meetings to be ad- j dressed by me were made by the or- j ganisation, through its executive, and : my function was to do what I did, namely, fulfil the programme of addresses laid down. I was not a member of the executive of the organisation as such. I produce a copy of the constitution of the Democrat Political Organisation. “Under this constitution the executive consists among others of the leader of the party in the' House. I, , of course, was not in 'the House, but j. in the event of my election would j then have been entitled to a seat on j the executive. In the event of my not j being elected and other Democrat can- ! di dates being elected, the leader of > those elected in the House would have ■ had a seat on the executive. Under the constiution, it says that the leader may !

be consulted on matters of importance if the executive think fit. I was, in fact, never consulted in any way with reference to Mr Baulf’s position.”

] Mr Hislop at this stage was crossexamined by Mr Mazengarb, whose first question was: Do you claim that 1 you were never a member of the ' Democrat Party? i Mr Hislop: No. I Mr Mazengarb: Were you a member of the party but not a member of the executive?—l was a member of the party, but neither of the executive nor the organisation, j You say that the organisation is something different from the party?— Yes.

i And is tire organisation something different from the executive? —Well, the executive was the executive of the organisation. Eut net the executive of the party? —Yes. The executive was the executive of the organisation but not the executive of the party. As far as I

know Davy has the original copy of the constitution I got my copy from Clark, the treasurer, about a couple of months ago. Have you ever attended any meeting of the executive party?—No, except that some time prior to the meeting of candidates I was asked to meet Messrs Davy, Clark, and Paisley—all members of the executive—to discuss the question as to whether I would join the movement. Is it a fact that from the date you were appointed leader there was no meeting of the executive? —I cannot say. And are these minutes all dated prior to your appointment as leader?— I cannot say, as I have not got my copy here. I sent it to Mr Cooke, K.C., who is my counsel. To the best of your recollection from reading the minutes the executive did not function after the date of your appointment as leader? —That

may be so, if the minutes are a complete record. Did you not perform other functions for the party besides shaping the policy and addressing meetings?—No, except that I paid to them some moneys which had been sent to me, but which were not sent to me by my request. CHEQUE FOR PARTY PURPOSES Did you not receive a cheque for £3OOO made payable to your order?— I received a cheque, but I think the amount was £3250, but I am not certain of the exact amount. 1 Was this cheque made payable to

' your order? —Yes. Was it handed to you by Mr Davy while you were on a tour for the party?—Yes. j Did you lodge it to the credit of a Hislop trust account?—Yes. I Was that trust for the party organiwas to hold that money for j the general purposes of the party, j At this time there was a treasurer jof the party (Mr Clarke).—Yes. I You did not pay the money to the ■ treasurer? —No. I was expressly ! asked to keep it for my own account 'by Mr Davy. The treasurer also ! knew that it was lodged to my ac- ! count. No question was ever raised i about this. I Approximately, how many payments j were made by you out of this ac- | count for party purposes?—l cannot say off hand, but the whole of the payments were made with the concurrence of the chief executive, Mr Davy, and the knowledge of Mr ! Clark. Prior to the General Election day how much of this money was expended by you?—The whole of it had been applied in -accordance with the arrangement made between Mr Davy and myself. ! How much had you expended for

I party purposes out of this account ! prior to the election?—The whole of lit had been applied for the general ! purposes of the party in accordance ! with the arrangements made by the ! chief executive officer. I FERSONAL PAYMENT ! Did that arrangement with the chief ! executive officer include personal pay- • ments to yourself?—Yes.

And what was the total amount of the payments to yourself?—£looo. (This question was objected to by Mr ! Hislop).

Did that £IOOO represent a personal profit to yourself in addition to actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred on the tour? —No. It was paid to me to protect me to some extent against anticipated financial loss resulting directly and indirectly from a six months' campaign. In actual fact I have suffered heavy financial loss | through the campaign. (The question jwas objected to by Mr Hislop.) | But your actual expenses of touring ' and addressing members were paid by Mr Davy, otherwise than out of this cheque?—The greater proportion of all the expenses of my tour were met, or were intended to be met, from the funds of the organisation itself. In the main I think they were although I have since found a fair amount unpaid. (The question was objected to by Mr Hislop.) Mr Davy also held certain moneys for the party out of which he paid certain expenses?—As far as I know practically all the funds were held by the organisation, and were operated on by Davy and Clark for the purposes of the campaign. I also wish to add that the £3OOO received by me was from what I was told only a small portion of the total funds, and payments out of this £3OOO I paid, not of my own volition, but at the direct request of Mr Davy and Mr Clark. I did not pay any of this £3OOO purely ; of my own, but entirely under their ! direction. I did not ask for the £3OOO j to be paid to me, nor have anything to j do with its payment to me, and knew • nothing about it until the cheque was given to me. The cheque itself was j collected by Mr Davy himself. (The 1 question was objected to by Mr Hislop.)

Was the arrangement in writing?— No. (The question was objected to.) Does Mr Davy deny that arrangement? —I don’t know. I have been told since the election that he does, but have had no direct communication from him. No question was ever raised about it until after the election. (The question was objected to.) After you were elected as leader, did you telegraph to Mr Baulf asking him to make arrangements for you to meet members of the party in Auckland? —I have no recollection of that telegram, but I was to go to Auckland for a preliminary meeting with members of the party, and it may be such a telegram was sent in my name.

OPENING THE CAMPAIGN How many were present at this preliminary meeting?—Two hundred and fifty to three hundred persons, members of the party, were present at the preliminary meeting in Auckland, but I am speaking entirely from memory and after having addressed a very large number of meetings, and could not say definitely if this recollection is correct. It was intended to be a meeting of candidates and friends. On the 2nd October you opened the public campaign in Auckland on the occasion of your second visit to Auckland? —Yes. There were 5000 present. The arrangements for the meeting had been arranged by Mr Baulf?—l could not say that. Davy had gone to Auckland several days before me to make arrangements. Did you not give Baulf certain directions concerning the arrangements for that meeting?—The only thing I did was to have a look at the hall in the late afternoon and told the people there to move some chairs and a loud speaker. Baulf may have been with me. Davy certainly was. Davy undoubtedly had control of all the arrangements, though Baulf doubtless did what he was told.

You went to Auckland on a provincial tour later in November?—Yes. Mr Baulf made the arrangements for you for that tour and accompanied you throughout the tour?—He accompanied me, but I cannot say who made the actual arrangements. Baulf doubtless did his part. Did you not from time to time give Baulf directions?—No. Possibly of an entirely minor nature, such as seeing that the lights were lit in the hall before the meeting.

Did you not, for instance, ask him to engage three de luxe sleepers in which you and your party should return to Wellington?—He may have done that —it is the job that either the hotel clerk or the organisers do. It would be the ordinary job of the organiser in Auckland to see that the travelling arrangements from Auckland were made. I may have asked him whether he had done so.

PAYMENT TO PARTNERS Apart from the money out of the £3250, did you have an arrangement with Davy for £IOO a month to be paid to your office as compensation for your absence from professional work?—One hundred pounds a month for a period of three months was to be paid to my office under an arrangement I made with my partners. Actually default was made in payment of one sum of £IOO, and I paid it to my partners myself, out of my own money. (The question was objected to by Mr Hislop.) After the General Election did you ascertain that there was a sum of approximately £I2OO owing by the party for election expenses to various creditors?—Yes. Although I believe the actual amount is larger than that. (The question was objected to by Mr Hislop.) Did you ascertain that Mr Davy had unexpended moneys in his possession?—l was informed that he had a claim to moneys which have subsequently been paid to him, and out of which he owes £SOO to the organisation. The question was objected to by Mr Hislop. Has Davy expressed his willingness to utilise this £SOO for the payments of debts of the party if you apply the balance of the cheque of £3250? —I haven’t been told so by Davy, but I have heard indirectly that he is willing to pay his proportion. As far as I am concerned I have paid purely ex gratia approximately £7OO out of my own moneys since the election towards payment of election debts. I did this because I did not like people to remain unpaid for services rendered to an organisation with which my name was connected. I am personally a loser from a financial point of view of a very considerable sum. (This question, the last, was objected to by Mr Hislop.)