THE BRIBERY CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14930, 1 March 1912, Page 8

THE BRIBERY CHARGES.

NO TRUTH IN THEM,

LETTER NOT TO BE PRODUCED

' A BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. - THE QUESTION SHELVED. | [BY TELECRAPIor—SPECIAL correspondent.] • Wellington, Thursday. . ' The findings of the Parliamentary Com- > mitteo upon tho questions of privilege i arising out of tho allegations in connection with tho member for Grey Lynn were re- ' ported to the House of Representatives this afternoon, i Reporting upon tho first order of reference, which related to tho writ- . ing and the publishing of tho letter quoted 1 by Mr. Massey, tho committee stated that it "is unable to inquire further" into the matter contained in tho order of reference . by reason of tho facts that Mr. Massey, . having been asked to-produce the letter referred to, and to givo the name of the writer, respectfully declined to produce tho letter, or disclose the name of tho writer. Sir Joseph Ward moved : "That in the ' opinion of this House a breach of privi- , lege has been committed by tho witness . (Mr. Massey, M.P.) refusing to produce ■ to tho committee a letter dated February 12, from -which he had quoted in the 1 course of a speech delivered by him in the , House on February 23, and that the House ■, is of opinion that without abrogating its rights, and without establishing a precedent, further consideration of the matter should bo postponed." Tho Primo Minister said that probably looking at all the circumstances this was tho most sensible course to follow, for the reason, that Mr. Massey had publicly withdrawn and apologised for his mistake in quoting from tho letter in tho House. Since tho Leader of tho Opposition had acted in this way it would bo a mistake for the House to insist upon its rights by forcing the production of tho letter. The motion, was carried on the voices. "No Truth in the Charge. Upon the second order of reference, the statement by Mr. Massey that Mr. Payne was reported to havo been " squared " by Mr. Vigor Brown and Sir Joseph Ward at Napier, tho committee reported that after hearing the evidence it was satisfied that thero was no truth in the alleged charge made against Mr. Brown, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Payne. Tho Hon. J. A. Millar moved : " That in respect of tbo report of Privilege Committee No. 2 tho report be endorsed by 1 the House." Tho motion was carried. Not Taken Seriously. . The statement by ■ Mr. Payno that Charles McMaster had been authorised to bribe him was the subject of the third order of reference. The committee was of opinion that the evidence taken on oath as to the words used is conflicting. Mr. Payne, tho report proceeded, says the words used were: What, do you think ! I havo been authorised to offer you from £500 to £1000 if you will go— I think those were the words—with the Ward Administration." . Mr. McMaster denies the use of the above words, and says the words used were': "That Ir(McMaster) could get £500 if I could handlehim (Payne)." There being no further evidence on that point the committee is unable to say what the exact words used were. The evidence leads the committee to conclude that whatever statement was made was not taken seriously by either Mr. Payne or by Mr. McMaster at the time it was made. Sir Joseph Ward, moved in respect of the report of Privilege Committee No. •3 : "That in view of K the evidence of 'Mr. McMaster and Mi-; Payne, from which it is shown that there M-as no justification for tho implied or suggested offer of a bribo to the hon. member for Grey Lynn, that tho report bo received and endorsed by tho House." A Point in the Evidence. Mr. Fisher said that' a statement had been mado by the member for Grey Lynn that Mr. McMaster was in a muddled condition; that was to say that ho was half drunk. Sir Joseph Ward,: That is in the evidence. ■ * ... Mr. Fisher : I know it is in the evidence. I was present at the time, and I say that the evidence showed that Mr. McMaßter was not drunk at the time. ■ I move tho addition of the words, "and that the evidence clearly showed that Mr. Payne's statement that Mr. McMaster was muddled with drink was not substantiated'" Sir Joseph Ward : The committee was not asked to try him. Mr. Fisher : It is no matter whom you were asked to try. A statement has been mado against an individual who is not present to • defend himself. Mr. Payne raised a point of order. Mr. McMaster, ho said, did not prove in his evidence that ho was not intoxicated. Mr. Fisher assumed that Mr. McMaster had distinctly proved that he was not intoxicated. The Speaker ruled that this was not a point of order. ..*.';" Mr. G. M. Thomson seconded Mr. Fisher's amendment. . Sir Joseph Ward said ho had expressed no opinion v whatever upon any evidence given before the committee. The point now raised ' had- never .' been before the House, nor was it referred to tho ' committee for consideration. Ho was the last man in the world to stop the House passing a resolution saying that a man was not in the condition referred to, but the fact remained that there was no such thing, as a reference of this matter to tho committee. Tho committee had not been asked to inquire whether anybody was drunk or sober. What soli of position, he asked, would bo created if the House referred to a committee the question as to whether a man was drunk or sober? It was very illadvised that this should be noticed. It only meant perpetrating a thing that most , members would bo glad to see buried. Mr. Payno said Mr. Fisher was introducing a matter extraneous to the inquiry referred to the committee. He was quite prepared to defend his own honour, and quito prepared, to prove that he was correct in his evidence given to the-commit-tee. Mr. Fisher seemed to bo very particular about the honour of an absent man, but not very particular about the honour or ono of his fellow-members. Mr. Fisher's resolution was a suggestion, that he (Mr. Payne), had uttered what was not true before" that committee. He objected to such an imputation being brought against him as a member of the House. Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) opposed the amendment, which, he said, would clear Mr. McMaster at the expense of Mr. Payno. Mr. D. Buick (Palmersten North) thought the amendment should be withdrawn. The House had not the material for forming an opinion on the point. The Hon. R. McKenzie also opposed the amendment. Mr. G. W. Russell. (Avon) said the amendment dealt with a matter outside the committee's order of reference. Tho committee had- taken this view. He also pointed out that the House had not been able to consider the evidence. The amendment was lost on the voices, and the motion was carried. Sir Joseph Ward said he would like it to be recorded that the amendment did not commit- the House to any opinion as to the condition of Mr. McMaster at" the L time in question. (Hear, hear.) . ■(l