THE BRIBERY RUMOURS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14929, 29 February 1912, Page 8

THE BRIBERY RUMOURS.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY j LETTER NOT PRODUCED. WRITER'S NAME NOT REVEALED. NO ADVANCE MADE. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE. [BY telegraph— co»e.esto\-di:xt.] Wellington, "Wednesday. [ Farther evidence was taken to-day by i ! the Committee of Privilege upon the q;jes- | tions arising' out of the debate in the I House of Representatives on Friday night, I including suggestions that a bribe had been offered to Mr. Payne, member for Grey Lynn. The committee will report its findings to the House to-morrow afternoon. Before the House adjourned last evening an extension of three days was granted to the committee to enable it to complete its inquiry. When the committee met this morning oil the members were in attendance. Mr. J. A. Ha nan presided. There were also present: Sir Joseph Ward, Mr. W. F. Massey and his counsel (Mr. M. Myers), Mr. J. Payne and his counsel (Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.G.), Mr. J. Vigor Brown, and Mr. C. McMaster and his counsel (Mr. T. Young). A large number of members of Parliament wat-ched the proceedings. 'Hie committee resumed its inquiry into ih& matters named in the first order of reference, adjourned on the previous day at the request of counsel. This was concerning the writing and the publishing of the letter which caused the sensational debate of Friday. Mr. Myers said lie did not desire to make an opening statement. ' Mr, Skerrett submitted that Mr. Massey was in the position of prosecutor, and should make out his case. Mr. Myers said Mr. Massey had nothing to add to what he said in tho House on Monday evening. Mr. W. Fraser contended that since the House had declared that a breach of privilege had been committed Mr. Massey occupied rather the position of defendant, than of prosecutor. Mr. Skerrett admitted that he mighthave nsed an unfortunate term, but he insisted that the duty of affirming the truth of the charges devolved on Mr. Massey. Original Letter Asked For. Reference was made to the letter, an extract from which was read in the House by Mr. Massey. The Chairman: Will you produce the letter here? Mr. Myers: "So, sir, and I propose to give reasons. The Chairman: Will you give the name of the writer? Mr. Myers: No. Mr. Myers said that the contents of the letter were of a confidential nature. Mr. Massey had frankly and candidly stated in the House that he made a mistake in reading a copy of an i extract from the letter. To ask him now | to produce the letter or to give the name j of the writer would be asking him to do ! the gravest wrong. In support of this i contention, Mr. Myers cited authorities to show that the writer of the letter could obtain from the Supreme Court an injunction to prevent Mr. Massey from making ' any use of it. The most a Court could ' do would be to order the production of j the letter upon an undertaking being give® ; that it would not be used for any collateral 1 purpose. Tho production of the letter ! might expose the writer, and the persona named in it, to libel or slander actions, in- ] stituted by persons over whom the com- ; mittee had no jurisdiction. It would not < •be sufficient to obtain an undertaking from 1 Mr. Payne that he would not make use of ( the letter. The committee had no power ( to ask for such an undertaking, or to en- ] force it if given, and there might be other i persons who would not be bound by an ] undertaking given by Mr. Payne. In these 1 circumstances he submitted that the com- 1 mittee ought not to ask for the produc- - tion of the letter. If it did, he would 1 certainly take the responsibility of advising i Mr. Massey that it would be improper for 1 him to comply with the demand. ' Letter Not a Breach of Privilege. i Though the reading of the extract had been declared a breach of privilege, the writing of the letter had not, arjd he submitted that the House certainly would not have made such a declaration. That was another reason why tho committer should not insist upon the production of the letter. Mr. Skerrett replied that Mr. Myers had argued that Mr. Massey had made an unlawful use of tho letter, and had -done an injustice to its author. On that ground >I'.'. Myers asked the committee to excuse Mr. Massey from producing the letter. It was clear enough that in no court of tho land would Mr. Massey be privileged from and against the production of the letter. In this instance the letter was the gravamen of the charge—was in fact the charge. Mr. Skerrett maintained that an undertaking given to the committee—the highest tribunal in the land —would be as binding as one given to the judicial courts, lie did not propose •to explain at present the attitude that Mr. Payne would adopt in connection with the -production of the letter. Why the Letter Was Read. Mr. Myers controverted a statement by 'Mr. Skerrett that the statements in the letter had been adopted by Mr. Massey. Tho letter, lie said, was read in consequence of an invitation from Mr. Payne to Mr. Massey that he should relate everything that occurred during an interview. Mr. Massey read the extract as incidental to the interview, thorgh Mr. Payne denied that lie heard ii on that occasion. Mr. Myers said that tho document was required for collateral purposes—(Mr. Skerrett : "Xo.")because threats had been mado in the House. The Chairman : That is not before the committee. I Mr. Myers : Has it not been stated in the House that actions might be brought upon the production of this letter? ° Mr. Russell asked Mr. Myers in what manner ho identified the duties and responsibilities of the committee with anv action Mr. Payne might consider it necessary to take afterwards. He considered that the committee was not concerned with any ulterior motives. Mr. Myers replied that it would be improper fur Air. Massey to produce the letter, and tho committee ought not- to a.-k for it.H production. The Chairman : Do "you submit it has | no right ? Mr. Myers : I hardly go so far as that. I submit that a court would order its production only on an undertaking, and the committee could not do so, because there are parties who are not necessarily before the committee, and, therefore, would not do bound by the undertaking. Mr. Russell: My point is that we have nothing to do with the point vou are raising. Other Persons Interested. Mr. Myers: I submit, that it is a matter which the committee should take into consideration, because it is not bound to have £na. letter before- it to carry- out- its duties.

Ho added, " Young and ——'a father'' were concerned in the matter. Mr. Myers raised a further reason for the non-produc-tion of the letter, that it might incriminate Mr. Massey in respect of some causeof action other "than the. present proceedings.

The Committee Insistent.

\ The committee then sat in camera to deliberate as to whether it should demand the production of the letter, and, on resuming, the chairman stated that it had decided to ask Mr. Massey to produce the letter. Mr. Myers: Mr. Massey will have no alternative but to respectfully decline. It would be very wrong of him to produce the letter, and expose his correspondent and other persons named in the letter to possible actions for libel or slander. Mr. Hanan: Will you give the name of the writer ? Mr. Myers: There is the same objection to that. The Chairman: Do you refuse to disclose the name of the writer ? Mr. Myers: He respectfully declines to do so. | Mr. Russell: I think Mr. Massey should be sworn, and definitely asked whether ho I will produce the letter. Mr. Myers: Surely not. He has au- ; thorised me— Sir Joseph Ward said he would not press ! for the production of the letter, either bej fore the committee or in the House, but he was very anxious to know who was the writer, and to whom the blanks referred. Since .Mr. Massey refused to produce tr.a letter he failed to see why the committee should waste time in trying to force him to do so. Mr. Russell argued that a most important precedent was being established. He thought that Mr. Massey should be sworn and asked by the. chairman to produce the letter. His refusal should then be taken down as part of the evidence, and reported to the House. A Slight Misunderstanding. Mr. Skerrett said that Mr. Payne did not desire the production of the letter, as it was entirely discredited. A moment later he apologised for having misunderstood his client, and stated that Mr. Payne desired to insist, so far as he could, upon the production of the letter. Committee Abandons the Letter. The committee again sat in camera to decide what further action it should take, but on resuming no further reference was made to the letter. OXLi T A POLITICAL JOKE. NO SERIOUS OFFER OF MONEY THE McMASTER INCIDENT. The committee proceeded with the third order of reference. This instructed the committee to take into consideration and inquire into the alleged charge in the statement made by Mr. Payne to the effect that one McMaker, of Auckland, had J been authorised to give the member for Grey Lynn anything between £500 and £1000 if he would go in the direction of 'he Ward party. Evidence on this matter was given by Mr. Payne. Examined by Mr. Skerrett, le said Mr. McMaster became a supporter if his candidature within a fortnight of -he opening of the campaign. On Feb•uary 9 he had a conversation with Mr. McMaster, whom he met at the hitter's •equest in the Thistle Hotel at about threo i.m. Having met Mr. McMaster at the loor. they went into the bar and had a Irink. Witness was then introduced to Mr. Maurice O'Connor and to the latter's >rother. Mr. McMaster took him into the »otel office, and after some general conversation Mr. McMaster said, "What do ,'ou think? I have been authorised to offer ,-oa from £500 to £1000 if you will go with the Ward Administration." "I ooked right past him," said Mr. Payne, ' because he was evidently under the infuenco of liquor, and I could not consider t as a direct offer in the words in which t was made. I did not regard him as •esponsible for his actions. I made no eply, and it was not referred to again luring the conversation." Immediately fterwards, Mr. McMaster said he wanted ritness to see Mr. Massey, and they went o the Auckland Club, where they met the reader of the Opposition. There was it. tie reference to the political situation, ecause he and Mr. Massey had already ad an interview. That interview took lace in Mr. Dickson's office, and Mr. Dickon was present. He then informed Mr. [assey that he had interviewed the chiefs f his' committees, and was quite free to •assure him that he would vote with him n a no-confidence motion. When tuey ere leaving the Auckland Club, where bev had 1 been joined for a few minutes y'Mr. W. H. Henries, Mr. McMaster iid, "We will have that post office at Richmond, and he will get the credit of ~" explaining the remark by striking witess on the chest. On the following Wedesday or Thursday, witness was taken by Ir. Dickson to see Mr. Massey in the liter's office in the Parliamentary Buildigs. The intent of the conversation hich ensued was to ascertain whether he as still firm to vote against the Ward dminietration. Witness declined to make definite statement, and Mr. Massey then arned him that if he did not fulfil his pledge ho would commit political suicide. Offer Hot Taken Seriously. ' At this point counsel objected to the relation of this conversation, and Mr. Skerrett concurred. Cross-examined by Mr. Young, Mr. Payne said that Mr. McMaster did not mention a rumour that he was likely to support the Government, and that he was afraid that unless Mr. Payne kept his pledge there would be a new election, and that Mr. Fowlds would be returned. Mr. McMaster was the secretary of witness's committee. Because he did not think the offer was made seriously, he took no notice of it. Witness did not remember any expression of a fear that Mr. Fowlds might be elected. In reply to Mr. Myers, witness said that prior to his departure from Auckland on February 9 he told Mr. Durbridge, chairman of his Richmond committee, and Mr. Cathey, chief of his committees, that an offer had been made to him. Mr. "Myers asked whether Mr. Payne told Mr. Massey when he spoke to him about the offer that it was made by a person under the influence of liquor, "or that Mr. Payne did not take it seriously ? 'Hie chairman ruled that the question could not be put. and Mr. Myers was not allowed to ask Mr. Payne whether he told his Auckland friends by whom the offer ' was made. The ground of this ruling was that Mr. Skerrett had been prevented from elucidating the details of the interview in his examination. Why Was the Offer Mentioned? Mr. Russell suggested that there was an inconsistency in the alleged offer of a bribe and the subsequent invitation to see Mr. Massey. Mr. Payne replied that he did not regard the matter seriously, Mr. James Allen: Then why did you mention it to your committee? Mr. Payne: They were the executive officers of my Scheme 45 League. We were speaking in confidential terms of various matters, and I mentioned this bribe. Mr. Young objected to the introduction of foreign matter that had no reference to Mr. McMaster. Mr. Allen asked why Mr. Payne mentioned the alleged offer to Mr. Massev. Mr. Young again objected that the answer to the question might affect Mr. McMaster, who was not present at the interview under review. When the committee resumed after lunrheon Mr. Allen said he would not proas .he question. Opposed to Mr. Fowlds. Mr. Charles McMaster said he was a vine merchant. The chief reason for his nterest in Mr. Payne's election was that le was opposed to Mr. Fowlds. Refering to the interview on February 9 he lenied that he was under the influence if liquor on that occasion. Witness asked dr. Payne whether it was true that he ras going to break his pledge, and he «plied in the negative. "I said to Mr. ?aynei-by < vray;-of..a- joke* and he. iook-.it..

as a joke," continued the witness, "that I could get £500 if I could handle him." I mentioned no party. He did not speak, and there was no further conversation. No Serious Offer Made. Mr. Young: Is it true that you were authorised by any party to make an offer! Mr. McMaster: None at all." The witness said that at the Auckland Club he asked Mr. Payne to state in front of Mr. Massey that ho intended to keep his pledge, and Mr. Payne replied "Yes." Cross-examined by Mr. Myers: Witness said that in addition to holding a wholesale license ho was interested in a mineral water manufacturing company. In the interests of the trade he supported Mr. Payne against Mr. Fowlds. Mr. Skerrett: After the election were you opposed to the Ward Government? Mr. McMaster: No. Mr. Skerrett : For what reason did you take Mr. Payne into a private room and ask him if he was going to keep his pledge? Mr. McMaster: Because I was accosted every few minutes of the day by people stating that this man would "'* rat." Asked to Explain a Joke. Mr. McMaster denied that the interview with Mr. Massey was prearranged. He made his joke before asking Mr. Payne whether he was going to keep his pledgeAsked to explain the humour of his joko the witness said that there was no connection between the joke and his subsequent remarks. At the time it was anticipated that there would bo a dissolution, and it was desired to secure Mr. Payne as against Mr. Fowlds. His remark regarding a post office was, "Don't forget we want a post office there. The section which had been mentioned belonged to his wife, and he would like to see it purchased foe a post office site.

The witnesn was cross-examined exhaustively by members of the committee regarding the meaning of his " joke." He affirmed emphatically that there was no foundation for his statement, and that he had no idea where he could have obtained money had Mx. Payne accepted it seriously. In reply to Mr. Russell, ho said the trado regarded Mr. Fowlds as a very dangerous man, and he was glad that they had beaten him. Mr. McMaster also stated that some members of the committee desired him to bring- pressure- upon Mr. Payne, and he 'wrote a letter to him, to which he, did not receive a reply. In reply to Sir Joseph Ward, the witness paid he bid not been offered money by either the Government or the Opposition to "handle" anyone. Answering Mr. Skerrett, tho witness said that he informed Mr. Payne that his support was only in the interests of the trade. Mr. Massey Sees the Joke. Mr. Massey said ho saw no sign of intoxication or excitement about Mr. McMaster. He was not ■ quite so excited on that occasion as he was at present. Mr. Massey said he saw Mr. McMaster prior to the interview, and on the earlier occasion he appeared to be annoyed at tho reported attitude of Mr. Paynej but afterwards ho appeared to be quite satisfied. Mr. Skerrett asked Mr. Mafesey whether he could understand a perfectly sober man making such a joke. "There was a good deal of feeling," re- j plied Mr. Massey. "Rumours were going ! round that Payne intended to ' rat,' and I had heard of bets being made. I could imagine McMaster thinking of all these rumour?, and savin? to Pavne, ' I could probably get £500 or £600 "if I was able to get you to vote as I require.' "• Mr. Skerrett: You could understand a joke of that sort ? Mr. Massey: I have heard so many suggestions that I would not be surprised at hearing of anything happening in politics. Mr. Skerrett: You did not regard it as a joke when you mentioned it in the House ? Mr. Massey: I did not understand the circumstances then as Ido now. Mr. Payne had not said then that he regarded it as a joke. This concluded the evidence, and the committee continued its sitting in camera.