TAMMANY CHARGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7268, 26 October 1910, Page 8

TAMMANY CHARGES

JUDGES REFERRED THEM BACK CHIEF JUSTICE'S IMPORTANT LETTER. ONLY TWO REAL CHARGES. An important development in connection with tho Tammany allegations of Mr J. B. Hine took place yesterday in Parliament when the Prime Minister read correspondence from the Chief Justice showing that the judges had referred the matter back to the House. Two of th© charges were considered to be no violation of the law, one was described By the Chief Justiice as arising out of “ election babblement,” and two were deemed suitable for investigation by Parliamentary committees.

JUDGES ASKED TO INVESTIGATE. The Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Ward) read the following letter in which he conveyed to the Chief Justice the resolution of the House asking for a judicial inquiry;— Sir,—l have the honor to inform yon that during the debate in the House of Representatives on the Financial Statement, the hon. member for Stratford, Mr J. B. Hine, made certain allegations against members of Parliament in connection with the purchase of private estates by the Crown for the purpose of close settlement. The nature and form of these allegations appear on page 461 of the second volume of “Hansard” for this session dated August 10th. 1910, Mr Hine on the 12th inst. appeared before a special committee appointed by the House of Representatives to investigate and report on the allegations referred to. and then and there reduced these allegations to tho following definite charges: 1. That Charles Edwin Major, in or about the year 1904, while a member of Parliament, conducted the sale to the Government of a property of Frederick Baylv at Toko, and received from the said Frederick Bayly a commission or sum of money for so doing. 2. That Charles Edwin Major and Walter Byrnes, for one of them, in .or about the year 1905, while both members of Parliament, conducted the sale to tho Government of a property of Alfred Bayly at Toko, and received from the said Alfred Bayly a commission or sum of money, which the said Charles Edwin Major and Walter Byrnes divided. 3. That the said Walter Symes, in or about tho year 1906, and again in 1908, while a member of Parliament, charged and received from a number of West Coast lessees of native lands commissions or sums of money for preparing and conducting petitions in Parliament on their behalf. 4. That tho said Walter Symes, in the year 1905, while a Parliamentary election was presently in prospect in which the said Walter Symes intended to become and subsequently became a candidate, and being then actually a member of Parliament, did threaten or cause to be threatened a certain newspaper that h© would use his influence as a member of Parliament to prevent Government advertisements from being given to the said newspaper unless he received the support of or was treated to his own satisfaction by the said newspaper during the said election contest. 5. That Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, in or about the year 1904 and subsequent years, while a member of tho Legislative Council, cither alone or in conjunction with his then partner (a land agent), conducted the sale to the Government of the property of on© John Motley Leigh at Nai Nai, and tho properties of other persons, and received from tho said- John Motley Leigh and the vendors of such other properties commissions or other sums of money, or alternatively the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald and his said partner received the said commissions or other sums and divided the same. 6. That Henaro Kaihau, in or about the year 1906, while a member of Parliament, conducted tho sale to tho Government of a portion of the To Akau block, and received from the vendors a commission or other sum of money. On the 19th instant this special committee reported to the House of Representatives that it recommended that the charges so made be referred to the judges of the Supremo Court, sitting as a Royal Commission, to investigate and report upon the charges so referred to them. The House of Representatives, by resolution carried on the 19th October, adopted this report. I have therefore the honour to ask if you will be good enough to furnish mo with the names of two of their Honors, judges of the Supreme Court, who a>ro VilUng to bo appointed members of the proposed Royal ' Commission to investigate and report upon the charges X have already set out in this letter. Should your Honor consider legislation necessary to give validity to the proposed commission, X shall ask Parliament to pass it at once (Signed) J. G. WARD, Prime Minister

CHIEF JUSTICE REPLIES

CHARGES REFERRED BACK. October 22nd. 1910. Sir.— I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated October 3fob, which I received yesterday afternoon, in regard to certain proceedings in Parliament. I understand the charges mentioned are all the charges regarding which, an •«- qniry is desired to bo made. Charges 1, 2. 3, 4 deal with the conduct of citizens who wore members of the last Parliament, and who are now representatives of the people. So far as charges 1 and 2 are concerned, they are ohargas that two members of Parliament acted as land agents on the sale of land to the Govem- : ment. They did not act as atgents for the Govememnt. Assuming that these charges are true, no law has boon violated. They do not come within the provision 3 of the Legislature Act. 1908. 'lf a member acted as a servant of the Grown, tho case would have been different, as that would have subjected him to a disability. So far ‘as charge 5 is concerned, that is a grave charge, and in Australia, I believe, more than one member of Parliament hag been expelled for acting in a similar way. The person charged ia not a member, and I am not awara of any law under which h© could be subjected to punishment. Charge 4 is the reproduction of the babblement of an ©lection contest, and if the threats mentioned were uttered, tbev are of a class that have not, go far as I know, been made tho subject of parliamentary inquiry. The person making the threat was not at the time a member of Parliament. Regarding tho fifth charge, if true, no violation of any law is charged, a.nd the rarae must be said of the sixth charge. I aj?simio that both members acted as land agents for persons selling land to the Government. If the Parliament thinks such agency should not be permitted, then a law should be passed on the subject. None of tho charges are charges of corruption. although charge 3 is one of 'mproper conduct. In non© of the other charges is there any suggestion of any I corrupt bargaining. Ton are doubtless aware that the Court of Appeal decided in 1909. and jn my ab-

ccncc. m the case of Cock v. the Attorney General (28 N.Z.L.R. 405);

(1.) That a Royal Commission to investigate whether a crime has, or hae not been ccmmitletl, was illegal, and, (2.) That the appointment of such a commission to investigate action that was not criminal would be to create a new offence and would he void, and ultra vires of the Governor. The Crown acquiesced in that decision, for there has been no appeal to the Privy Council against it. It appears to me that even if legislation were passed rsversmg the decision referred to. the charges stated are not such as should he investigated bv judges. If any present member of Parliament has acted in a way derogatory to his membership of Parliament, the Parliament alone should deal with him. To deal with persons not members, and who have been guilty of no violation of any law is to proceed contrary to the customs, if not to the laws, of our Empire. I hope, therefore, tho House of Representatives will withdraw its request for the judges to investigate these charges. The judges are over anxious to asrist in everything that may tend to the good government of the Dominion, but I hope it will be seen that the inquiry proposed is not of the class on which judicial officers cf the State should enter. I may add that my brother judges approve of this, my reply to your letter. (Signed) ROBERT STOUT, COMMENT IN THE HOUSE SIR JOSEPH WARD'S RESOLUTION. The Prime Minister in moving that a message l>o sent to tho Speaker of the Legislative Council conveying the information- that a charge has been made by tho member for Stratford against the Hon. T. Kennedy Macdonald, said that tho charge against Mr Kaihau would be referred to tho special committee'already set up for the purpose. It was quite evident the House of Representatives could not deal with the charge against a member of tho Legislative Council. It was his clear duty to move that the charge against tho Hon. T. K. Macdonald bo sent to the Speaker of that House. To save time, and to have the privileges of that Hooiso respected, he thought tho course ho was suggesting was right. Personally ho regretted that the judges had not been able to seo their way to investigate the charges. Mr W. F. Massey (leader of the Opposition) suggested that it was a pity the Prime Minister did not communicate with tho Chief Justice prior to referring the matter to the judges for inquiry. Had he done so ho believed a very great deal of time could have been saved. Sir Joseph Ward; Wo could not do that. MR MASSEY ON PARTIALITY. Mr Massey, continuing, said ho was anxious to see the matter cleared up during the present session, therefore he did not propose to offer the slightest objection to the motion. It was now going to be a Parliamentary committee, and ho sincerely hoped, in connection with the proceedings of that committee, they; would have more fair play and impartiality from its chairman than was indicated the other afternoon when the matter was before tho House. Mr J. A. Hanan (chairman of tho special committee to which the charges were originally referred) declared that Mr Massey's remarks were quite uncalled for. Anything he had said could bo compared with what the judges had said, and it would be seen that his remarks were on all fours with the judges’ opinions. As to expressing any opinion whether the men charged were right or wrong, he did not do so. It was extremely unfair to suggest partiality, especially as Mr Massey was not in the House when he made the remarks on which the allegation was based The Prime Minister remarked that whore there was a possibility of the matter being referred to judges he considered highly undesirable and improper to communicate with the judges, nor would he have done so if tho judges had agreed to have a Royal Commission set up. Anything that passed between himself and the judges had been by the correspondence which he had read. He was sure the committee would deal impartially with the matter. The chairman dismissed the legal aspect, and everyone who was on the committee would agree that the chairman was absolutely impartial*. The motion was agreed to on the voices. The message notifying the charges against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald was received by the Legislative Council just before it rose for the afternoon. On the motion of the Attorney-General consideration of the matter was mad© an order ' of the day for this afternoon.