ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8189, 2 August 1912, Page 1

ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

ANOTHER ECHO OF USX GENERAL ELECTION.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE TAKES EVIDENCE.

The Privilege Committee set up by Uio House of Representatives to inquire into ami report upon the publication of a letter written by AA illiam Sinclair on March 25th last, reflecting on the character of Mr R. McCalinm, M.P. for AVairau, opened its inquiry in Parliament Buildings yesterday. Mr J. Hanan presided,' tho other members present being Messrs R. Lee, _G. M. Thompson, 11. Atmoro, T. E. A. Sedrton, Hon. AV. Eraser, and E. AV. Lang. Air AV. Sinclair appeared on his own behalf. Mr AlcCallum was represented by Air C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Air S. A. Atkinson. Tho chairma.n intimated that the committee proposed not to go into tho merits of tho case. All they were going to devote attention to was inquiry respecting the publication of the letter alleged to be written by Air (Sinclair to Air Carr. Tho following letter had been received from Mr Carr: Blenheim, July 26th, 1912. The Hon. Thomas Alackenzie, AI.P., AA’ellingfon. Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your- communication of 18th inst. requesting rny attendance at tho inquiry of tho Parliamentary Committee on Ist pros, to give evidence re the publication of a letter written by AVilliam Sinclair to me on Alarch 25th last. In reply I beg to say that while I have every desire to treat the committee with courtesy and to facilitate its inquiries, I cannot see my way clear to attend personally at my own expense in AVellington on tho date named, especially in reference to a matter in which I claim to bo in no wise concerned. I desire to .say with the utmost emphasis that whatever our personal viewe may, be relative to the conduct of the AVairau, election, of the decision of the court in tho election petition case, neither I nor the other petitioners have been in any way party or privy to the publication of the letter of Alarch 2oth referredto, and they and I disclaim any responsibility in the matter. (Signed) AVILLIAAI CARR. “CONFIDENTIAL* At'the request of the chairman Mr Sinclair put :in a copy of the letter written by him on March 25th and addressed to AA'illiam Carr, a client of his. This was .the letter read by Air McCollum in the House. He also put in. a copy of a letter, he• sent to Air AV. A. Veitch, AI.P., covering a copy of the letter written to Air Carr. This covering letter, which was signed by Limself, was as under: (Private and Confidential.) High street. Blenheim, . Alarch 30th, 1912. Dear Sir, —

That was why he wanted the latter caled as a witness.

THIRTY-NINE COPIES AIADE

Questioned by Air Skerrett, he said ho had made thirty-nine fac-simile copies of his letter to Air Carr, signing each one. These ho had sent toe thirty-nine several members of Parliament, Air Veitch being among the number. He in each case sent a covering letter, identical with the one sent to Air Veitch and already produced. He was not requested by Air Carr to make any report to him upon the case, but deemed it his duty to do so. His retainer by Mr Carr had not been withdrawn at that time.. He had now some fresh evidence to offer which was not put before tho Election Court. His action'in forwarding thirty-nine copies of the letter was taken independently of any from or consent on the part of his client. Up to the present he had not had any instruction from his client to present a petition to the House dealing with the result of the judgment.

In r.ep!v to other questions by members of tho committee, Air Sinclair explained that ho had sent copies of the letter to the thirty-nine members who voted with Mr Alassey on the no-con-fidenco motion. He had hesitated whether he should send a copy to Mr Veitch, but thought it would be all right because he marked it “private and confidential.” Air Leo remarked that he would like to hear Air AlcCallum to find out where tho letter cam© from. “I DON’T KNOW YOU.”

Air Veitch was then summoned and sworn as a witness.

Air Sinclair : Did you receive a letter from me in August in reference to the AVairau election? —I. don’t know who you arc [ ' (Laughter!) My naAne”is Sinclair. Do you know now?—Yes, 1 did get a letter from someone named’Sinclair. AATiat did you do with it?—l kept it. AVere there not two letters; an enclosure addressed to you and a copy of a letter to a Air Carr?—There was an enclosure, but I don’t know whom it was addressed to.

What did you do with the.enclosure? —I destroyed, it; that was, the 1 letter addressed to myself. . Did you ’notice that *tbe letter was marked “private and confidential”? — Yes. ,

AVhen you receive a letter so marked and are ,not : prepared . to_ treat it as such,- don’t you- think it is your duty to return It to the sender ?—No.

Those-are your ethics,-are they?— What did you - do with. the letter to Carr?—l don’t think I need tell you.

Air. Skerrett submitted that it was not necessary to inquire how the let ter came into Mr McCallum’s hands, seeing it was sent to thirty-nine members.

Mr Sinclair’(to Mr Veitch): Did yon not hand the enclosure to Mr McCallum ? —I think that is my business. The chairman: You had better answer.

Wairau Election Petition Case 1912. Thinking you may, as a member of the Reform Party, be interested in the trial of the Wairau election petition recently held in Blenheim, 1 beg to enclose a copy of the report on the case in which I was engaged «s counsel for tho petitioners. In addition to the report, suggestions are made as to the methods to be adopted to have the judgment of ‘Williams and Chapman, J.J., reviewed by the Privy Council in the interests of tho purity of elections. The whole subject will bo brought before Parliament next session. (Signed) WILLIAM SINCLAIR. PRIVILEGE CLAIMED. Mr Sinclair said that it was his intention to contend that both letters were privileged—tho one to Mr Carr because it was written as from solicitor to client and the one to Mr Veitch because it was written to a member of Parliament. He submitted that he had a right as an elector to write to a member of Parliament when he had t public object in view; in this case, the purity of election. He had intended on his own account to present a petition to tho House at tho next ■ensuing session asking that an Act be passed to have the judgment of the Supreme Court reviewed—not with a view to having Mr McCallum displaced from his seat but in order that it might bo laid down whether the judgment was in accordance with the laws of England. AVith all deference to ♦.he judges he claimed that their judgment was erroneous in law, and so he ■wanted the judgment and the notes of evidence sent to the Privy Council for its review. He submitted that as.a matter of law he had a right to write to any member of Parliament setting forth the facts with a view to this object being accomplished. He had a large number of authorities on the point to quote, but if ho were sure he would be called to the bar of the House he would not inflict them upon the members of the committee. The chairman reminded him that ho was called before tho committee as a witness to give information. Ho was now discussing the whole question. Mr Sinclair said he hoped that he would be allowed to call Mr Veich to corroborate his statements respecting publication of the letter. The chairman said that the letter the committee had to make inquiry about was the one written by Air Sinclair to Mr Carr.

Mr Veitch: Very well. 1 did hand it to Mr McCallum. I did so because I considered the statements in it most discreditable to the writer.

Closely questioned as to when the letter was handed over he said he was quite unable to remember. He gave the letter to Mr McCallum personally.

REGARDED IT AS AN ATTACK, lu reply to Mr Skerrett he said he regarded the letter as an attack ■ upon a member of. the House and thought it was only fair, to bring it under hia notice. He did . not think a letter of such a kind should be protected simply because it was marked “private and confidential.” The letter contained gross.charges against Mr McCallum. He' was not positive- when ho gave Mr McCallum the papers, but- believed it was within twenty-four hours of tho matter being brought up in -the House. Air Sinclair : Why. did you keep this letter concealed in your papers from March 30th to July 3rd? Mr Veitch (with - some warmth): Your question conveys an insinuation that 1 strongly object to. • I did not conceal it fit all. Mr McCallum, questioned by Mj Skerrett, said that he got ’tho letter from Mr Veitch during the supper ad journuient_ on Wednesday, July 3rd Ho had, ‘ however, heard from Mr Veitch the. previous week that he had a letter which ho ought to see. Before the letter was made public several other members of tho House had admitted to him that they had received similar letters.

Mr Sinclair asked for an opportunity to speak in his own defence before he was cf£alt with in any way.

The chairman said .that the committee had simply to inquire; it had nothing at all to do with any punishment. A member of the committee suggested that they could report to the House that My Sinclair desired to be heard, Mr Sinclair saying that he would Tie quite satisfied if this were done. After some further discussion it was agreed that Mr Sinclair should be allowed to state his case briefly, “A CLEAR. RIGHT.” He submitted that no portion of the letter was a libel upon the member for Wairau and said that all the statements in it referred to Mr McCallum simply as a candidate. There were plenty of authorities on the point and he hoped to convince the committee that there was no breach of privilege at all. After discussing the question of publication ho reserved to himself the right to argue the question of privilege at the bar of the House. There was no publication,, because the letter

Questioned as to what publication he was referring to. Mr Sinclair said ho took the reference in the House ns moaning publication to Mr Vcitch.

was marked “private and confiden. tial.” . , , , He had a clear right to do what he had done without committing any offence. He had a right to approach members of Parliament and as this matter touched a member of the Liberal Party he sent the letters to men on the other side of the House. IN "SECRET? “Doing it in the secret way yon did?—queried the chairman. Mr Sinclair quoted several legal authorities in support of his contention that the letters were privileged and that, therefore, there had been no publication. In reply Mr Skerrett urged that privilege oould never be claimed for imputing crime, to anybody. The letter complained of was an abusive anu scurrilous attack upon Mr McCallum. It contained gross charges expressed in almost venomous language. It was a monstrous proposition to say ' that a person could circulate a, libel, gross charges against the honour of anybody, simply by prefixing “private and confidential” to his letters. If this could be done to thirty-nine members of Parliament why not to them all, to every ratepayer in' New Zealand ? The words “private and confidential” had no magic at all. Tlie committee then deliberated in private.