“DOWNRIGHT PIECE OF IMPERTINENCE ”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8258, 22 October 1912, Page 1

“DOWNRIGHT PIECE OF IMPERTINENCE ”

SIR JOSEPH WARD WILL NOT WITHDRAW

Before the first order of the day was called in the House of Representatives last evening, Sir Joseph Ward said he would like to know what position a committee was in which had decided to report circumstances connected with its procedure, and had not yet done so. At the Public Accounts Committoo meeting on Priday it had been decided to make a report to the Hosuo in connection with statements made by himself. Under the standing orders a matter of that sort should come immediately before the House. Ho had come there on Priday evening expecting it to bo done, but it was not, and for this evening again, it appeared to be going to be passed over. Ho wanted to know what position he would be in in relation to mat committee. Could he go back to it and not have that question raised until dealt with by the House? Ho wanted the matter cleared rip and judgment given by the House as soon as possible. Air Massey said h© had declined to allow the debate on the Land Bill to bo interrupted on Priday evening. Ho thought tho proper place for these reports to bo received was in tho afternoon. Ho thought it had been under* stood it would come up tho next afternoon. Sir Joseph Ward: There was no such understanding so far as I am concerned. He added that he wanted to know what position he would be in if ho went back to tho committee which was called for 10.30, on Tuesday morning. If tho matter was again raised very little work would bo done. DUTY OF THE CHAIRMAN. Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) inquired if it was not a rule that, when a dispute took place in a committee of tho House, it was tho duty of the chairman to at once report the matter to tiro House exactly tiro same as if the disturbance had taken place in committee of tho whole? Tho Speaker said that in his opinion that was so. Tho chairman of tho committee of the whole House and the chairman of any select committee should report at once to the House any matter of privilege or broach of privilege. THE REPORT PRESENTED. Mr J. B. Hino (Stratford) said that ho had explained to Sir Joseph Ward on Priday that the matter would not bo brought up then. He had the report there and would present it. Sir Joseph explained that before' coming to the House on Friday he ascertained that a speech was being made, and that probably after it was over tho matter would be raised. He had, therefore, cancelled his Dunedin engagement and remained. The Prime Minister inquired if tho matter could stand over till next day. Sir Joseph Ward said that ho would prefer tho matter to bo gone bu with at once.

Mr Massey; All right. Mr Hino then rose and presented tho report of tho committee, as follows: I have been directed to report that at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee the Eight Hon. .Sir Joseph Ward, on being asked by the chairman to answer a question, used tho words, “That it was a downright piece of impertinence.” On being asked to withdraw tho words. Sir Joseph Ward refused bo do so, and tho words were ordered to be taken down, and to be re-

ported to tlie House. Mr Hino said ho took this opportunity of reporting the matter to the House, and moved that the report be laid on. the table.

Sir Joseph Ward: Might I ask if it is not usual for the exact voids complained of to be submtted to the HouseP The words complained of are not contained in that report. Mr The words complained of are: “It is a downright piece of impertinence,” and they are in the report. Mr Russell: What was a downright piece of impertinence P A ONE-SIDED STATEMENT.

Sir Joseph Ward: This is a one-sided statement of the position. The words of which I complained Should in honor bo embodied in tho report. The words used by tho chairman should be included. Wo have a statement of the words used by me but not tho words used by the chairman, and of which I complained. The Hon. J. Allen: I wonld suggest that the report be sent back to tho committee and it report fully. Sir Joseph Ward: No, I think I am placed in a very unfair position. (Hear, hear.) It should be gone on with. Mr Hino rose to a point of order. _ Sir Joseph Ward was before the committee as a sworn witness and ho refused to obey tho order of tho chairman as a witness. In view of that was it right to debate the matter before the House’?

The Speaker: Ido not think the point of order deprives an hon. member of tho House Oif his right to debate tho position in the House. (Opposition laughter.) Sir Joseph Ward said he was going to place on record tho general position, but in the meantime he would call the attention of the House to the fact that tho statement was on© sided. A MATTE® OF MANNER.

Mr A. Myers (Ancklnnd East) said, as a member of the committee, he would like to say in fairness to Sir Joseph Ward that a full account of what occurred prior to the use of the terms complained of Should be given; otherwise it would be- impossible for the House to come to a correct decision. The facts leading up to the incident should be given. It was not so much what the chairman said as the nasty way he said it. (Dissent.) He spoke quite impartially. There had been a good deal of sparring' between the Minister of Finance Mr Allen: No sparring at all. Mr Myers: Well, the hon. gentleman wanted questions answered a certain way . Mr Allen; That is very unfair. Mr Mvers: I am perfectly justified in saying that. He proceeded to quote from the newspaper report of the incident. He took that of thia “Evening Post” bocanse ho had it by him and ho had thought it very accurate. Mr Myers then read the report and said the description "at cross-purposes" just about summed it up. It snowed conclusively that Sir Joseph Wand, rightly or wrongly, felt that the question put to him by the Minister of Finance was

FRIDAY’S INCIDENT DISCUSSED IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

put in such a way as to justify "in hi* opinion the expression ho did. SIR JOSEPH WARD ON TRIAL.

Mr Myers then read tho published report of tho committee's proceedings. Ho submitted that the whole circumstances must bo taken into consideration. Sir Joseph Ward, who had occupied tho highest position in the gift of the people, was practically on his trial, and tho held to enable him to refuto certain "statements that were made on tho floor of the House. One could understand that the right hon. gentleman felt his position keenly, and any criticism he would feel more than anybody else not directly interested. Tho Minister of iinanca was endeavouring to elucidate from the right hon. gentleman certain answers to his questions. When these* questions were put. Sir Joseph Ward hod a perfect right to answer as ho thought fit. Sir Joseph Ward thought ho was not entitled to give certain information because ho was not then occupying the position of Minister of , Finance. It was impossible to come to ! a proper decision upon a matter of this j kind unless one endeavoured to realise the whole circumstances. It was a most unfortunate incident, and lie trusted tho matter would lie debated without heat. He thought the member for Stratford should make tho amende honorable. (Laughter.) Probably they were all more or less affected by the work of the sesiSSi, and the chairman had apparently I given cause for the remark complained I Of.

Mr Guthrie: Don't apologise. Mr Myers: lam not apologising. Surely Sir Joseph Ward should bo allowed to form Tils own judgment on a matter of this kind, and the member for Stratford should express his regret. The Minister of Finance was not entirely blameless; ho sometimes, spoko peremptorily. NO REPORT AT ALL.

Mr G. Witty (Eiocarton) said they wore asked to condemn one of their follow members unheard. This was no report at all which had been presented. ’They shouul hare a full and detailed account. They had no right to refer it back to the committee; nobody with a spark of honor would bring down so one-sided a report. Sir Joseph Ward was perfectly justified in what he did. and the Minister of Finance should have known better. This House must bo getting very low when reports so one-sided were brought down. He hoped a full report would be obtained and discussed in a fair and impartial manner. PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.

The Hon. W. Fraser said be was very pained that- the incidents should have occurred; and ho,thought it was a pity that tho matter had had to be brought before the House. He was chiefly concerned with tho principle involved. What was sought now to bo laid down was that what one member might say to another should bo justified in cases when tho words should not have been used. That had never been laid down in the House. If anyone was guilty of using language not parliamentary or contrary to a digBified manner of carrying on debate, it was the duty of the member to withdraw. It was for tho Speaker to say whether tho words were unparliamentary. Be had seen many instances of members who had used regrettable expressions, but rney had all withdrawn the words when asked. It was quite another principle to say that, because one 'man irritated ffnother Tjy some expression, then that other man'was warranted in saying what ho pleased. He hoped that for tho sake of tho House and for tho conduct of debates, they would not resort to such a specious argument. If it were admitted that tho words were such as could not be used on the floor of tho House, then tho same rules of procedure should apply. '

A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT. Sir Joseph Ward said he had the greatest respect for the last speaker, and had he been chairman, the incident would never have occurred. Ho had. been a member of Parliament for just on twenty-five years and had sat under three different Speakers—Sir Maurice OTtorkte, Sir W. .1. Steward and Sir Arthur Guinness—and he had never been in conflict with tho chair. He hail alee sat under eight different chairmen and again had never been in conflict. He proposed to tell the House what had occurred. He would say at once that he would not withdraw, and .ho wonld give his reasons for not doing so. Ho would give the incident categorically and leave the House to judge. Ho uotided himself from the start of pix>coedings that tho chairman was not impartial; that ho showed distinct bias; that ho shelved himself a partisan on tho side of tho Minister of Finance; on tho side of tho Government and against himbelf. And though he ruled him (tho speaker) out of order upon more than one occasion —and upon each occasion ho had no doubt that if tho point had been referred to tho Speaker he would have Ween proved to be wrqug; —yet ■ ho accepted ‘ his ruling in every case. He would give som'e of these incidents when ho had been ruled out of order.

The Speaker said it was not permissible to go outside the incident which was before the House.

Sir Joseph. Ward: I may not deal with what ted up to it? The Speaker: No. Mr Russell, on a point of order, questioned if the report showed that the words complained of 'had been addressed to tho chairman.

Th'e Speaker asked for the report and said that by inference it was clear that the .chairman was referred to. GREAT LATITUDE. Sir Joseph Ward said that to prevent misunderstanding ho would say he did refer to the chairman. He procteeded to say that as he could not refer to the rulings of the chairman he would say / in general terms that tho chairman allowed tho Minister of Finance to put qu'estions to witnesses that he had never heard allowed by a chairman. " He took hearsay evidence from witnesses, that evidence being favorable for tho time being to the Minister of Finance. The Speaker ruled that Sir Joseph could not refer to other witnesses. He must confine himself to the incident.

■ Sir Joseph Ward: Very well. The Minister of Finance was questioning mo at the moment regarding what I would do as to a certain position in connection with making provision of moneys for commitments, and in the course of some remarks Mr Allen said: "J am speaking

of October and November. What about that timer” Sir Joseph M ard replied that ho was speaking of the end of the year ;uid taking tho moneys available in October and y.oveiuber was like taking account of liabilities at the end of June. It was only a trick. The chairman (Mr Hine) then rose and said, “I must ask you to answer tho question er refuse to answer it." 'T answered,” said Sir Joseph, "that he should not. dictate tome how 1 was to answer. It was a piece of impertinence to tell mo how to answer, ilr Alien then moved that those words be taken down. 1 said distinctly that 1 was referring to the end of tho year. And I simply want to say this: I liavo never known a chairman attempt to interrupt a speaker who was answering a question and who specifically named tho timo ho was referring to. At the time I regarded his words ns a piece of imp'ortmenoe and I do so still.” Personally ho regretted coming into conflict with the House, but ho had his eolf-respoct as a public man to think of, and ho declined to withdraw that observation. Ho regarded tho actions of tho chairman as having been most offensive and most biassed. Mr Kerries: Aro those expressions permissible. Tho Speaker: I und'erstand they are used in a political sense and not per sonally. , Sir Joseph: lam not referring to hu Erivato capacity. I never do. 1 saj is rulings were politically biassed and politically offensive. Tho whole thing was don© offensively from the start, i consider I was improperly and unfairly treated by tho chairman of that committee. I said it was he who should apologise and -not I. I have placed my view before tho House and am content to accept its judgment. FLOUTING THE POSITION.

Mr A. S. Malcolm (Clufha) said they wore not called upon to enter into tho merits qf the chairman’s ruling. Had not tho right hon. member for Awarua, 'when Prime Minister, frequently impressed on members their duty to accept the chairman’s or Speaker’s ruling? The member for Awarua should unquestionably have withdrawn the words. Tho first necessity of every member was to obey the ruling of tho chair. It ill became the member for Awarua to flout the position, and he should withdraw tho words, which he had no right to use, and such as which tho House had never tolerated. It .was tho duty of tho aggrieved person to submit to the chair. A member must obey the chair, otherwise it would not be possible to maintain order. WORDS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED.

Mr B. McCallum (Wairau) said he would pray the hon. member for Stratford to withdraw his motion. The words were not unparliamentary; it was just the way they were spoken. What was said by a witness on oath was absolutely privileged, and a member on oath should be immune. Tho member for Awarua was giving evidence on oath, and no judge oould say to a witness he must withdraw certain words. How dare any member ask him to retract or withdraw? Ho took it that the House wouldi never say to any witness: “Ho shall say a certain thing or he shall not eay a certajn thing. Witnesses on oath should be protected. The position had been entirely misconceived by the committee, and tho matter should now bo withdrawn. They had now spent an hour upon it. Sir Joseph Ward had a high, reputation as a financier, and tho member for Stratford was not to he compared with him. He (Mr McCallum) asked for a ruling on the subject from the Speaker. BREACH OP PRIVILEGE. The Speaker; X think in the circumstances that this language used by the right hon. member to the chairman of the committee is a broach of jirivilege. Sir Joseph Ward was there in a dual capacity, and on no account oould tho words he held to be evidence. It was an expression of opinion, not evidence. TRUMPERY STORM. The Hon. W. H. Henries said it seemed to him to be a trumpery storm in a teacup. He looked at the matter in a different way from the members for Awarua and Wairau. It was not an altogether legal question. Supposing a witness said to a judge that a certain, thing was a piece of impertinence, then, that witness wouid be committed for contempt. Ho (Mr Herrdes) had been ou various committees, and had seen chainnum oomtinuaily caution witnesses and tell them to give a straight answer. Si* Joseph Ward was in the position of m witness, and whether tho witness wore a member of Parliament or the humblest man, if ho evaded questions; it was the duty of the chairman to warn, such witness that ho .was not answering the-ques-tion. Sir Joseph Wand was denying the right of chairmen of committees to keep witnesses -on the track. The high standard of their committees should bo maintained, and if the House was going to refuse the right of a chairman to warn witnesses and to control tho committee, that would bo a sorry day for tho House, because tho whole of tho committee work would go to wreck and ruin. It wal very unwise for tho right hon. member to submit himself as a witness, if ha thought there was political bias, and that the chairman would be offensive. When ho (Sir Joseph) deliberately offered himself as a witness, then it warn his duty to submit, as any other witness would have done. REFLEX OF THE HOUSE.

The committees were a reflex of the House, and the same rules applied. The words had been ruled by the Speaker as unparliamentary, and were such whether used in the House or in' the committee. The right hon. gentleman had not the thick hide that some of them had got in opposition. (Laughter.) He (Mr Herri.es) did not think the member for Strut" ford or the Minister of Finance intended political bias. The question was w trumpery that the House should not delay, but proceed to the orders of the day.

APOLOGISED FOB THE CHAIRMAN. The Hon. D. Buddo (Kaiapoi) said th« last speaker had apologised for the chairman of the committee. The words that led up to the words complained about wore not in the report. Hon. W. Fraser: They hare nothing to do with it. , Mr Buddo held that it was the function of a judge to protect witnesses. If he had been in the same position as the member for Awarua he would have acted in the same way. It was on absolute insult. No self-respecting member would put up with persecution. He suggested to the Minister of Finance that the report should be referred back to the committee. DOG BETWEEN THE COMBATANTS. Dr A. K. Newman (Wellington East), a member of the committee, said that Sir Joseph Ward and the Minister of Finance were having a good sparring, and Sir Joseph. Ward did not like it. Aa oiton happened when two persons were having a quarrel, a dog came along and got ■ the kicks: in this case, the dog ticked was the chairman. (Laughter.) Sir Joseph Ward must know that it was an ungenerous and unwarranted attack upon the member for Stratford. It would be grossly unfair to put this report on the table and refer it back to the committee. He could not vote for its being referred back, and thus cast a slur upon the chairman. CHANCE TO WITHDRAW.

The Hon. J. Allen said that one reason why he did not want to have the matter discussed by the House on Friday evening was that it would give the right hon. member a chance to write » letter and withdraw. That had not been, done. ' Whatever was the action of the chairman, it was not under consideration at the moment. What was under consideration was the disrespect to the chair. If the Speaker allowed word*

like that, what would become of them? Exactly the same procedure had to be adopted by committees. No dissent was raised when it was moved that the words bo taken down. It was his (Mr Allen s) duty "Bo uphold the dignity of the chair. It was due to the chairman to say that os far as he (Mr Alien) could see, the chairman had not shown bias. Ho ventured to say that, knowing Hr Hine’s strong feelings, the latter had controlled the committee in a very unbiassed way. Sometimes it was necessary to bo incisive to get on with business. He had the shorthand writer's report of the proceedings, and he recounted the incidents leading up to the remark complained of. The right hon. gentleman had submitted himself voluntarily as a sworn witness. It camo to hia (Mr Allen's) turn to examine him, and he asked where money was to come for certain commitments. Sir Joseph said "From the Post Office." "I said ‘lf I can’t get it from the Post Office, where am I to get it?’" He (Mr Alien) got an answer that he would get the money from the Consolidated Fund. Ho immediately wondered when and where, and was really amused. He began :,to cross-question Sir Joseph as to how he could get the money from the Consolidated Fund in October and November. Sir Joseph that in these months they had to raise money on Treasury bills Mr Allen read questions and answers from the official report to prove his reference to the Treasury bills, and the months of October and November. "MOST IMPROPER."

Sir Joseph Ward said that the eta torn out from which the Minister had read alleged to bo a copy of the evidence given by him (Sir Joseph). "I say that that evidence, which the mice of the House require to be sent to witnesses fat examination, has never been sent to me, and has been passed to the chairman before I saw it. If that is right, I look upon it as most improper/* The Speaker said that the proper course was for the clei-k of the committee to send the report to witnesses far perusal and correction. This, he presumed. would bo done in this case.

Sir Joseph Ward: Yes, the Minister of Finance is reading it already. The Speaker: The nates must be taken for what they are worth. Mr Alien said he took this report as more accurate than the newspaper rerts. The words could not bo tolerated the House, and the right hon. gentleman would be consulting his own dignity by retracting. BIASSED AND ONE-SIDED. Tsfe Hen. R. McKenzie (Motneka) regretted that the report had not been referred back. It was biassed and onesided. The remark from the chairman, "You must answer straight,** was a reflection upon Sir Joseph Wand. If there was a contumacious witness before a committee, it was the duty of the committee to report him to the House, and not use objectionable or insulting words to him. The language used must have been offensive. The chairman had exceeded his duties in telling a witness to answer straight. The report should be referred back to the committee. Ho moved to that effect. Mr J. Colvin seconded this. REMARKS LEFT OFT. ' Sir Joseph Ward raised a point of ardor. The Minister of Finance had quoted from the report of the shorthand writer. He (Sir Joseph) had just read this report, and it was headed “Extract from evidence given by Sir Joseph Ward before tho Public Accounts Committee, when under cross-examination by Mr Allen.** and in that evidence the remark to which ho (Sir Joseph) took strong exoeptiofl. was left out. At whose instigation was this report prepared? The Speaker: I take it it is the duty of tho chairman to explain. In reply to a point of order raised by Mr Colvin, the Speaker ruled that when a committee reported circumstances which had. taken place in committee, (vnything relating to transactions in committee was entitled to bo produced. Mr Hine, in explanation, took it that the report as produced was a true record. "SAT UPON.*’ Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) said that fivo times durina tho dav Sir J oseuh

Ward had bean eat upon, by the chairmam of the committee.

The Prime Minister asked whether it wee competent for a member to say such a thing.

The'Speaker ruled th® remark out of order.

Mr Russell withdrew, Russell, after quoting from anewspapor report, • ®ud the Mimsrer of B'inanoe had lost no _tuno in springing forward at one© to bring his foo on the floor of the House. That showed what feeling there was. Ho hoped the amendment would be accepted beca-us© tho report did not disclose the whoie of th© facts and the officdlal report did not correspond with the fuller reports published bythe daily papers. The gentlemen of the press were more used to getting the detail of such incidents and thoix statements were more likely to be accurate. COURSE TO BE ADOPTED. The Prime Minister (Mr Massey) said Ke desired to ask th© member for Awarua what course he proposed to adopt in connection with the amendment. If ho desired the report to go,back to the committee hei would suggest that the amendment should bo withdrawn and the Minister of Finance, who wae really in charge of the Public Accounts Oommittee, would move a similar amendment to give tne committee another opportunity of considering it-

Sir Joseph Ward said that this put a very responsible onus upon himself, oo far as he was concerned, once the committee had decided to report the words, he could not go back to tb© committee until the House dealt with it. t He had no objection to the matter going back bo the committee, but he wanted it clearIt understood that he did not want the position of eating humble pie before that committee. He was prepared to discuss the matter impartially. The Hon. B. McKenzie said he would bo pleased to withdraw his amendment to meet the wishes of the House. Sir James Carroll agreed that it was tho feeling of the House that the matter should go back to the committee.

Mr J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) concurred with this view.

The Hon. A. L. Herdman then moved that the report be referred back to the committee. The Hon. J. Allen said ho would support 'this amendment. He had offered it m the early part of the evening. Bui there ihnst be an understanding that eucXi a course would not be a slight to the chairman of the committee or to himself. Ho hoped the difficulty would be fixed up in the committee itself. , REPORT REFERRED BACK. Hr J. B. Hine said that in the interview with Sir Joseph Ward on Friday evening he had tola him that he would not report the matter then because he hoped reason would prevail. He alleged there existed on tho part of opponents a certain bias towards himself which had been revealed that evening. This clouded their vision and prevented their seeing clearly. In detailing the incident he said the word "straight” had not been used till after Sir Joseph Ward had used tho words complained. Tho report cam© to the House by the unanimous wish of the committee. Some members who alleged bias on the part of the chairman that night had in committee supported the proposal to report to the House. When the committee met in the morning, if Sir Joseph Ward approached it in -a proper spirit ho had no doubt a settlement would bo arrived at. In sanctioning the report being referred back it was with the understanding that the committee’s action should not be slighted or the chairman’s ruling affec-

Sir Joseph Ward said he had entered into no compact with Mr Hine on Friday evening. He had telegraphed Dunedin cancelling his engagement and would not agree to the matter going back to the committee 'without coming before the House. Ho kept quite an open head in the matter going back to the committee. If the committee did the same then a solution should be arrived at. If not, then the report would be brought once more before tho House.

The amendment referring the report back to the committee was then carried on the voice*.