ACTION FOR LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16121, 9 July 1914, Page 9

ACTION FOR LIBEL

FAIUISAIRX v. Till') OTAGO DAILY TIAiKS. (From Ouk Own Corp.esmndent.) CIUUriTCHCRCII, duly 8. In the i-'upreiuo Court to-day, betoro i\lr Justice Sim and a sp.vial jury, 1 liv case was called in which Audi, w Fairbairn, merchant, of Chr.strMUreh, sued the Olago Daily 'limes and Witness Newripapen-s Company fTrd.) lor ±11000 damage* tor libel alleged to lx: published in the Olago Daily Times. 'J uore wei-o four causes of action. Tho first -was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times, oil October 15, 1912, of a leading article. In this it, wan fctak'd that, whether with or without tho sanction of the witnesses.- concerned, the official record of tho Cost of Diving Commission, of which the plaintilf was a member, was misleading and citoim-ous in the respect that certain evidence in Chrintchurch cm a purtioul.nr point of intermit had been 00111ple.tely suppressed. Tlio articlo said:

This discovery has been made by tho chairman ot 1110 lViercnante' Association, ivno, by tho quotiuou <->t tho newspaper reports, clearly cstabi.oUus 'ins point tout liberties iuivo been taken with th© ovideaioo in the oliicul record. One of tho

witnesses who vvero called 111 Quristcmireh

to give, evidence as to the iniquities pracused by the Merchants' Association declared in general terms that the public received none of the benefit ot tile remissions or reductions of diitics on various

lines ot ;rooris. This was a very tuto generalisation, but when it came to a

matter ot giving specific instances the witness, Ma' lAitiux.'rc llowyer, lound him-sl-iI on dillU/Uit, ground. He committed

hunselt, However, to tne statement tnat, although the duty on blue- had boon reduced by 2d per ib, tho price 101 l by one penny only—from to 7-£ d, the Merc.uants' Association laJcing one-half of the reduction in tho duty and ttio Grocers' Association taking the other half. 'The witness was unfortunate in tho illustration he employed, since, as a matter of fact, tho duty on blue was reduced by one penny only, and the fact, as stated l>y him, that the price fell by tt penny showed that the public received the lull benefit of the. reduction in the tariff.

T'ne mistake into which lie fell was pointed out in the 'evidence of Mr A. W. Jarniewjn, acting manager of the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Association, who (submitted to tho commission a lengthy statement that had boon prepared by mm. It dad not, however, suit either

Mr Bowyer or some, members of tho commission that his blunder in this re-

spect should be exposed in the official

report of the proceedings, because obviously the effect was to vitiate the

generalisation in whioh he had indulged, that the Merchants' Association, was appropriating for its members a concession that had been intended for the benefit of the public. Accordingly the course was boldly followed of suppressing that portion of his evidence that related to the price of bkie. There still remained, however, the evidence on the point by Mr Jamieson controverting Mr Bowyer's statement regarding this commodity. This was readily disposed of, however, by the simple plan of suppression, a aid references in Mr Jamieson's evidence to the class of business done by Mr Bowyer and to the influence of ''cutting" upon trade in general wero similarlv suppressed. . . . It is interesting to add that the members of the Cost of Living Commission relied upon what they heard from Mr Bowyer, among others, to justify their statement that the Merchants' Association raised the prices of various commodities to the nublic immediately it secured control of them. According to their report, " sworn statements of these witnescs, who are reputable men of some standing in tho community, cannot be lightly brushed aside." In the light of the fact that a portion of the swor.n statement of one of these witnesses was struck out of the report of the evidence because it could not be substantiated, tho passage we have quoted from the report of the commission reads

somewhat quoerly

The plaiutilf alleged that this article meant that the commissioners, including himself, hud corruptly tampered with the evidence given by the witnesses mentioned by suppressing certain portions of the evidence in order to make tho evidence as recorded support their finelings, and had thereby rendered the official report of the proceedings of tho commission untrustworthy, and that tho commissioners had acted in connection with the reporting of such evidence in an improper and dishonest

manner

The second cause of action was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 10, 1912, of a letter signed by "Wm, R. Gordon," in which the statement was made that if the Government wa6 anxious to get at the facts as to the cost of living it could readily do so at a minimum of cost from the records in its possession, but thi "would not have suited the Socialists and would not have given Mr Fairbairn a chance to • grind his axe.' "

Tho third cause of action was based on tho publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 15, 1912, of a letter signed "Merchant," who, after suggesting that a company, doing business in a southern town, for which all tho purchases were made through the firm of Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co., was owned by tho Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, so that business relations existed between him and Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co., said that readers of the report of the proceedings of the Co;:t of Living Commission in Christehurch might bo able to understand why Mr Fairbairn publicly examined his own accountant, and they might feel inclined 1 to think that Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. wero working in tho combined intercuts of themselves and tho grocers, and not for the people generally, as Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. would have the iiublic to believe,

The fourth cause of action was based on tho publication in the Otago Daily Times of June 15, 1912, of a letter signed "L. R. W.," which contained tho statement that, from the. evidence taken in Dunedin, any cominon-scnse elector could see that tho whole Cost of Living Commission had boon appointed " for the purpose of enabling one of its members to attack hk business competitors and to further his own firm's interests."

The plaintiff alleged that tho publication in each instance was false and malicious, and claimed £250 damages in respect of each cause of action.

Sir John Findlay, K. 0., with him Mr Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor. with him Mr C Stringer, for the defendant company. Tho special jury consisted of Messrs C 1-1. Gorton (foreman), J. H. Kidci, IT. Laurenson, R. Congreve, G. L. Donaldson, A. Freeman, R. English, J. L. I. Danks, S. C. Todhunter, R. D. Harman, C. F. Tumor, and P. Watson.

Sir John' Pindlay spoko for an hour and a-quarter in opening the case. After referring ta the appointment of the Cost of Living Commission and the object of its Investigations, he said a commission of that; character required first of all to be intelligent, impartial, trustworthy, and eager to curry out to the b'st of its ability the confidence which the Governor had reposed in the members appointed;. Tho gentlemen appointed were drawn from public callings, and from no particular political side. The qirostion at onw arose: How did Mr Fairbairn get on this commission? Mr Fairl«iirn never sought or suggested to anyone that ho should be appointed. He did not use tho least influence, and when he was asked by tihe then Prime Minister to take a seat on the commission he stated in reply that he jvoiild rather not. His reply was 'intended to l>c a courteous refusal. Tlie Prime Minister, however, decided to have Mr Falrbaim on the commission, and the next thiivr Mr Fa.irba.irn knew whs that his name had been gazetted as a member of the commission. Mr Faii-bairn's attitude to this commission was at. first one of courteous refusal, but after his name had been gazetted he conceived' it to be his duty to the nublk: and the country to accept tho position. Tho members oi a commission who accepted a place on tho commission entered into an agreement that they would act honestly, honourably, and impartially, and would" not ti'.<:> thoir position for the purpose of lining their own pcekct.s or do anything discreditable, personal, or mea.n. They undertook to net up to the duties and exiH'Clat ons which the public hud of t.hofe commissions. The obligations of hoiuur lay just as largely and deeply upon them as such obligations lay ou tho members of tho jury, and iihey could be violated only by simitar results "as those whicii would follow tho violation of the oath of the jury. 'J.ho commission entered on its investigations early in June, 1912, and took evidence in Christchuroh, Dunedin Wellington, and Auckland. A more thoroughgoing investigation ooald scarcely have been made. No member of the commission took evidence. There was a.n experienced official shorthand writer, who took the evidence down in shorthand, transcr!l>cd it on the typewriter, and sent a copy to the witness who had given the evidence. Each witness was asked to revise the evidence so that he could correct it ill immaterial matters, such as errors in grammar or things which did not affect tho senso of tho evidence. The evidence waa

then signed ,'i.s cornet and returned 1o tho clerk of the commission. In ouch case that wius done, though in a, few cases Miss Rout, the otlieial reporter, took the evidence down direct on the typewriter. Even then it w;us sent to he revised iUid signed. The clerk of llie commission was .1 trustworthy civil servant, and the evidence was taken charge of by him. What would the juiy say of a. Blutefiieni. that the Royal Commission tampered with the evidence given by witnesses

111 onlcr that the commssion might thereby justify a preconcerted, prejudiced, distorted, and' dishonest finding.' Kither that it was a gross or scandalous Jibed or that, the person who made it had sifted it to the -very bottom and had found i-t alisolutely true, and in justico to the commission had made public tho charge, &ir John proceeded to refer to tho article which contained tho reference to "faked official documents." How did the word "faked" strike tho jury? Official documents should be reliable, straightforward, and truthful. Tho writer of the article apparently know that the evidence wa.s submitted to the witnesses for their revision- a. -universal practice in royal

commissions. [i<\ agreed with tho writer when he said that the confidence of tho communiiy in royal commissions would l bo shaken if the evidence was tampered with

and sup-pressed, as wa.s alleged by tho article- ff the evidence had been deliberately suppressed nobody would pay one moment's attention to tho result of 1-ho laborious work of the commission. Gould anyone escape tho charge made tha.t the commission faked the. evidence in order to present a prejudiced report? Clearly, it was implied in the article that the commissioners not only suppressed tho evidence, but had modified and simplified it to suit their own preconceived conclusion. T-ho article contained more serious charges than any loading article pro-bttbl-v that the juryman had ever read. If there was a difference between the newspaper reports and the official report reasonable men would not therefore conclude that the members of the commission had acted with rascality and in a diihonest manner. Tho newspaper had been animated by a malice most unprecedented in the annals of journalism in this country. It was a disgrace to the newspaper that had published it, a disgrace to tho man who' wrote it,' and a disgrace to the press of this country. Tho writer of tho .article had shown himself to be utterly unworthy of holding a pen that could bo" addressed to the public. Counsel said that the facts as far he knew were

that the evidence given before tho commission was never tampered with in any respect, altered, or faked by the commission. If tho questions or answers were ungrammatical thev were altered. This alteration had to be mado in order that the words would road sensibly. Mr Bow-

yers's evidence was taken 'by Mr Berry.- a highly qualified shorthand writer. That evidence appeared in the report in extenso and without one lc-tt?r of alteration. So far os the lines regarding blue which appeared in the newspaper were concerned it would be shown that they were quite nonsensical. Mr Bowyer discovered that three halves did not make a whole. . Mr MacGrcgor: It was Mr Veitch who discovered that. . Sir John Findlay: Well, if it wae Mr Veitch, Mr Bowyer consented. T . , , Mr MacGregor: It wae known as Veitcn s little joke. ... . Sir John Findlay, continuing, said that Mr Jameson lad prepared a written statement. Those portions of the statement which Mr Jameson had omitted in giving Iris evidence wero 6truck out, as they must be. It was only that which Mr Jameson read thaj, was his evidence. No evidence given by Bowyer. and none by Jameson was altered. Mr Jameson apparently made an afterthought. Ho had failed to say something which he afterwards thought he should have eaid, and so he went to tho newspapers. The Christehurch Press dovetailed the statement in. The Press people wore apparently very obliging, but tho Lyttclton Times was not so courteous, and it would not piay the little game. It put it in as a statement made by Mr Jameson. Mr Jameson had an additional statement, but because it contained a bitter attack on two grocers, to whom he referred as price cutters, ho shrunk from allowing it to go in. Tho evidence given by Mr Jameson and taken down 'by the official reporter was sent to him with a request that ho would revise it. He did so, and returned tho evidence signed as correct. There was not a syllable that was not complete. By signing it and sending it back he implied that it was correct and that it could be printed in the official report. Counsel anticipated being able to show that Mr Jameson had not acted iionourably in regard to the matters referred to. The attack on Mr Fairbairn was the last of a series of charges made in the Otago Daily Times, and the previous charges had prepared the public for the last one. Sir John read the letter of June 10, and commented on the words "'Give him (Mr Fairbairn) a chance to grind his axe." What did that mean? That Mr Fairbairn got on the commission for tho purpose of furthering his own private ends in the discharge of his public duty as judgo and investigator. Ah anonymous attack published on June 15, was a shabby one. It alleged that there were business relations between the then Prime Minister (the Hon. 'Phos. Mackenzie) through a company knov/p as the Import Company, and Fairbairn and Wright Company, and that that was why Mr Fairbairn was appointed a member of tho commission. jvlr Fairbairn was a private citizen not seeking the suffrages of an electorate, and he was entitled to protection from this kind of insinuation. The insinuation that Mr Mackenzie had 6omo business connection with Fairbairn, Wright and Co. was absolutely and wholly untrue. It was absolutely untrue- that the Import Company was owned by Mr Mackenzie. The company carried on its 'business in Balclutha. The head of tho iirm would tell the jury that he bought the goods where he got them the cheapest, and that his purchases from Fairbairn, Wright and Co. did not exceed an eighth of tho whole. Mr Mackenzie had an interest in the firm through tho fact that his son was in it, and that he had a quarter share in it, but he had not had anything to do .with its management for years. There had been "a great deal of discussion about the examination of tho accountant of Fairbairn, Wright and Co. by Mr Fairbairn. It be came necessary that certain documents in the office of Fairbairn, Wright and Co. should be handed to the commission. Mr Fairbairn then suggested that he should resign. It would be proved that he was under no obligation to resign. He was advised by Mt MacDonuld, a legal member of tho commission, that tho evidence was documentary, and that he oould continue to sit. He was persuaded to remain on the commission. Tho witness was called, and live or six questions were asked. That was the whole story of an incident over which such a fuss had been made. Coming to tho last letter, counsel asked what was tlio meaning of the statement occurring in it " enabling 1 lone of its members to attack his business competitors and further his own firm's interests." If that wero true of Mr Fairbairn he would deserve to be hounded out of Christehurch. Other articles from tho newspaper would b© quoted to show the malice against Mr Fairbairn. Tho attention of the defendants had been called to the libel bv way of letter from Mr Stringer, who informed tho company that a writ would bo issued. Tho defendants did not withdraw their charges, nor did they make any apology. They merely notified the names of their solicitors, and stated that Mr Fairbairn had not been in the mind of the writer of tho article. Now they came to court with an allegation »f the truth of the statement. If t.hey failed to prove the truth of them, then they wore only aggravating the charges. The defendant paper said they made statements of fact, pnd also made certain comments which were fair and reasonable comments. Hewould ask his Honor to direct later that what the defendants said was comment was not comment, but a statement of fact, and that the paper could not escape upon the ground that those statements o'f fact were comment. The jury would bo asked whether the facts were true, and -whether the comment was fair and reasonable. Counsel did not propose to go into the question whether the Merchants' Association in ite methods was good, bad, or indifferent. What the plaintiff was there for was to ask the iury to decide whether the commissioners had tampered with, faked, suppressed, and altered certain testimony for the purpose of justifying their preconceived views. Plaintiff was also there to have decided whether he sought to obtain a position upon tho Royal Commission to grind his own axe. support his own interests, and attack his business competitors. Those were the two questions which affected Mr Fairba'rn's honour, and it was to vindicate that that .Mr Fairbairn iiad uone to the court.

Ktt r o Ann-'o Rout, authorised shorthand writer, said she was one of the reporters on the Cost of Living Commission. She re ported Mr Jameson's evidence. He was the last witness heard on the morning of Juno l\ 1912. His evidence was closed before the luncheon adjournment. He read a statement, a copy of which had been given to hor before ho started. She followed him a--, he read his own sf-ntcm-ent, and noticed that ho did not read everything. When ho omitted anything she struck it out on her eojiv. which was the rocogtv'sod practice in si.ch an event. She reported Mr* Jameson''! crow-examination, and when he had signed it ar>rl the statement and returned both she forwarded them to the commissioners in AiHdnml.

By Mr MncGropor : Tf there -was a discrepancy between the official report and the newspaper report, then the newspaper report would be wrong,—(Laughter.) The-

official reporter was right next to the witness, and the newspaper men were stuck away in a coiner, and nobody cared if they heard or not. —(Laughter.) Mr MacGregor: If there was any evidenee given about Reekitt's blue? Witness: It was not given. I am prepared to swear to that. To Sir John Findlay, witnrss said that the omission from the evening papers of a statement by Mr Jameson regarding blue and its appearance in the morning papers of the following day suggested that each morning paper had received special editorial or commensal instructions to nublish the statement.

Dr James Hight, professor of history and economics at Canterbury College, said that he was to the commission on June ?, 1912, in place of Mr John Ross, of Ross and Glendining. He was present when Mr Jameson gave hie evidence, and he had seen the statement as to Reekitt's blue.

Sir John Findlay: Have you any recollection of that statement being made before the commission?

Witness: None whatever. Was there any proposal to suppress any evidence ?

Such a proposal was never mentioned— either to modify, add to it, or suppress it. Was there any proposal to suppress part of Jameson's evidence? —None whatever.

As far as you know was any tampering, faking, or suppressing done in connection with Jameson's evidence?—No.

In connection with Bowyer's evidence?— No.

hi connection with any witness's evi donee? —No.

You have read the article headed " Faked Documents"?—! have read it.

Having read that article through, what innuendo do you say it supports? Mr MacGregor objected to the question.

And you read this article containing the reference to v an attack on his business competitors ?—Yes.

Who did you read it as referring to? —I read it is referring to Mr Fairbairn. Mr MacGregor: Why do you assume that these words referred, to Mr Fairbairn? Could anyone who had followed the course of the commission doubt the fact that Mr Fairbairn was attacking his business competitors?— Yes.

Do you doubt it?—lt never occurred to me that Mr Fairbairn was attacking his business competitors. I am speaking of him in his capacity as a member of the commission.

Do you know he had made ; repeated, attacks on the Merchants' Association?—l know he had been conoerned with some charges made against the Merchants' Association.

And did he not pursue these charges while ho was a member of the commission?— Not to my knowledge.

Do you not know that it was suggested by nearly every newspaper in the dominion that it was an indecent thinpr that Mr Fairbairn should be there at all?—I do not know that it was suggested by nearly every paper in the country. You know it was suggested by several? — I know it was suggested by one or two.

I understand you were put on the commission in consequence of Mr Ross's resignation? —Yes.

Do you know that Mr Boss is a merchant in a large way of business?—l know his reputation.

Did you know that Mr Ross resigned when ho saw the composition of the commission ?—No.

To Sir John Findlay, the witness said he recollected a witness named Rowe being called, who was in the employ of Fairbairn A proposal was made to tno commission by Fairbairn to resign from the commission. At a meeting of the commission in committee the matter was discussed. It was stated that there was certain documentary evidence to bo produced by this witness, and the propriety of admitting this evidence while Fairbairn was a member of the commission was discussed in committee. The decision, which as far as witness remembered was unanimous, was that Fairbairn would be justified in remaining a member of the commission when this evidence was received. Mr Fairbairn put himself unreservedly in the hands of the commission as to whether he would resign or not.

Mr MacGregor quoted from the evidence given by the witness Rowe in Christchurch, and also from a letter written by Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. to the Minister of Commerce making certain attacks on the Merchants' Association and the Colonial Sugar Company, and asked whether Mir Macdonald, the only solicitor who was a member of the commission, did not object to the letter going in as evidence at all, on the ground that proceedings were pending against these 1 bodies.

Witness answered in the affirmative.

Mr MacGregor: Did you agree with Mr Macdonald?—Witness: I said nothing at the time.

Did you agree -with Mr Macdonald?—l raised no objection, but I must have agreed with Mr Macdonald. The point was made frequently during the sittings of the commission that we should sedulously avoid the introduction of matter bearing on certain cases and the proceedings pending in connection with sugar. His Honor: Apparently the letter was published after legal advice had been obtained? Witness: Yea; after we got the best legal advice. Mr MacGregor: Whose opinion was taken? Witness: As far as my recollection goes, the opinion of the Solicitor-general.

Did the witness read the letter to the Minister of Commerce? —No. As far as ray recollection goes the letter was not put in as evidence at the time, but after we pot the legal advice.

Mr MacGregor: Then the official record h misleading in that respect?— Witness: There is a footnote.

Mr MacGregor: But the evidence is misleading, in thit direction. Is it not a fact that the witness handed in neither letter?— They were handed in to the commissioners. Mr MacGregor: These letters appear as part of the 6Worn testimony of Mr Rowe? Witness: They were put in as letters that might be used at the discretion of the commission. Subsequently they were included in the evidence. Mr MacGregor: And the Solicitor-general was then engaged in taking evidence against these very men. You thought his opinion best? Witness: It satisfied the commifision. Mr MacGregor: I have no doubt it satisfied Mr Fairbairn. There is this letter written to the Hon. Sir J. Findlay, Attorneygeneral, in which it is stated that the Merchants' Association is a combination of wholesale grocers who have banded together to bring pressure to boar to refueo supplies to traders who will not agree to fix prices on their dictation. That is a direct charge upon them. Do not you see that? Witness: Yes, it is a charge made against them.

You still say you did not observe during the sitting of the commission that Mr Fairbairn mado charges against his competitors, the Merchants' Association?—l said he did not tise his position to attack his trade competitors. Did not he abuse his position? Did it not strike you as singular that fne only legal man upon the commission (Mr Macdonald) protested against the injustice oF'it?—No, it did not strike me as singular. Is there not a direct charge in a .letter agoinstl the Sugar Cbmpany?—Yes; the charge is there made.

Did you not know that legal proceedings wore being taken against the Sugar Company involving this very charge?—l Knew proceedings were being taken against the Sugar Company, but did not know that was the particular charge. What did you think?—l knew of it only generally. I was not acquainted with t!he nature of the charge.

Did you think it was your duty to acquaint yourself with it? —No, I considered as a member of the commission it was my duty to investigate. I did not occupy the position of a judge except so far as I was there to join with others in getting evidence upon the points concerning which we were instructed to report.

Did you not think it peculiar that one of the judges should examine his own accountant while criminal or quasi criminal proceedings were being taken against competitors?—No, we were not in tho position of judges.

Mr MaeGregor: Excuse me, is that not quibbling? You made some very strong statements about tho Merchants' Association? —Witness: They may have been considered strong. They were not judgments. There was no penalty. Part of the penalty was that proceedings were then taken, and part of this report was used as evidence. That did not strike you us an improper thing?— No.

Did it not strike you as a remarkable thing that Mr Fairbairn should call his own accountant?— No. The accountant was called by tho commission, not by Mr Fairbairn.

Who asked Mr Rowe to go there?-—The secretary of the commission.

Do you think the secretary asked Mr Rowe to bring those particular letters written by Fairbairn, Wright, and. Co. to the Ministry and a long string of correspondence with business people?—Tho witness was summoned by the commission.

How did tho witness know to bring those letters?—Do you not know Mr Fairbairn must have told him?— No. I do not know that he did instruct his accountant or that ho djd not.

Do you know ho did not do so? —I havo no knowledge of it.

Do not you say, looking back, that it was a very improper thing to do?

Witness: What was improper? Mr MacGregor: That the accountant. o£ one of the commissioners should be called to produce the letters of oneof the commissioners relating to his business competitors? —I do not think it was wrong. Do you think it was a wise thing?—l think it was in the interests of the public. : . Sir Joiin Findlay: Could you havo fulfilled your duties in connection with the inquiry without the production of the evidence of Mr Ro we.?— Witness: It was of material assistance to us.

What was Mr Fairbairn's attitude on tho commission towards his trade rivals?—! think that his attitude was that of a particularly conscientious man in regard tv them.

John Ernest Thompson, residing at Balclutha, said that he was a Member of th» Import Company. There were four partners—the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, David Mackenzie, G. 11. Thorn; sor. and witness. The Hon. T. Mackenzie held one quarter share, but ho had no participation in the business. The other three were the active

partners. The firm had been in existence) since 1901. From an eighth to a tenth of its total purchases were made from Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. The rest might be spread over one hundred d : fferent firms. It was absurd to say that there were business relations between the Hon. T. Mackenzie and-Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. In reply to Mr MacGregor, witness said that he and G. H. Thompson were nephews of the Hon. T. Mackenzie, and David Ma«j? kenzio was his son.

Mr MacGregor: The Hon. T. Mackenzie used to own the business?

Vvitncss: No. The firm dealt in hardware, groceries, drapery, crockery, and provisions. It had dealt with Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. on the usual terms since 1901. Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. supplied about a quarter of the groceries, and Rattray and Son the rest.

Mr MacGregor: Is it not a fact that ybtt get from Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. whatever they can supply, and what they cannot supply you get from outside?— Witness,: That is not correct.

Mr MacGregor mentioned tho name of Mr Howes, traveller for Hudson and 00.4 and formerly traveller for Neill and Co; Had witness given him an order when he was travelling for Neill and Co.? Witness repeated that he had not, though Howes 'had come at him for orders. ;';

Mr MacGregor: Did you not tell him that you would not do business with hint because you dealt with Fairbairn, Wright, and Co? —No. Rattray and Co. aro bigger merchants than Ncill and Co.

Mr MacGregor: Did you not tell Howes that you had instructions not to give him any business?— No.

Mr MacGregor asked who had provided the capital for the import company's business. »

Witness: I had rather not answer that question; but I can tell you it was not a* Mr Mackenzie's.

Mr MacGregor: I did not say it was his, His Honor advised witness to answer fch< question, and witness thereupon said thai the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie had provided about one-half of the canital.

Sir John Findlay :- You understand tha drift of the questions. Has Mr Fairbairn any interest in the business?— No. John William Collins, chief clerk and deputy-registrar of industrial unions, said that lie was appointed to the secretaryship of the commission in 1912. He described, the procedure followed in sending out the evidence for revision, and read the letter sent out with each enclosure. The evidence of the witness Bowyer was sent out in the usual way, and was received back marked as correct. The only alteration made was in the form of a question, and that was made by Mr Hill, the member of the commission who put the question, some time after the papers were received back from Bowyer.

To Mr MacGregor: The alterations on page 3 of Bowver's evidence had come from Bowyer.

Was it referred back to Bowyer?—No. So that portion of page 3 is not Bowyer'* evidence at all, but Mr Hill's?—lt is not evidence j it is a question. The evidence was not altered in its effect.. The commissioners did not tamper in any way wit£ the reply of the -witness. In this case you will admit the evidence was altered after leaving the witness'laf hands?— Yes. • ':"■

Witness 6aid that if blue was mentioned and not noted by the official reporter -it was perhaps because the statement wa» nonsense. He believed that Mr Berry, who, reported the evidence, gave the report 0» honestly and well as he could. . \

Mr MacGregor: I ask you to account foe I the fact that there is not one word of referI enoo to Reckitt's blue in the official report?—l prefer to believe the official reconj. Mr MacGregor: You are like Miss Rout, then ?—Witness: I say he has done thi to the best of his ability. Andrew Fairbairn, the plaintiff, said 1» wae asked to join the commission by th« Prime Minister (the Hon. T. Mackenzie),In reply ho sent a telegram which he intended to be a refusal The terms of the/ message were: " Consider my personal evidence more, important; anxious to help the Government in every way." When he found he was gazetted a member he considered that 1 it would be cowardly to have refused to go' on. No steps -\vero taken to get him on tie commission, and eugg>estions in that direction: were absolutely false. As for the suggestion in the_ leading article about the suppression of evidence, there was not a scintilla of truth in it. It was untrue to Bay that he himself had a hand in suppressing any evidence given by Bowyer or by Jameson and the imputation that the evidence had been made to fit the findings of the commission was also untrue. He knew of no case whearo any member of the commission instructed any suppression or alteration of evidence to take place. When the suggestion about " grinding his axe " was put to witness b.9 replied: *'I accepted a seat upon that com; mission for no other purpose than to render a public service to tho best of my ability/'' Witness said, further, that he had nevet* had a business transaction with the Hon.T. Mackenzie in his life. The relation be- 1 tween the Import Company and his firm was on the same basis as any other of their customers. He decided when the merchanta throughout the dominion refused to give evidence that certain evidence he had in his possession should be given in the public in;" terest. He offered to retire from the coat-, mission, but its members decided that an employee could be subposnaed to give tbe necessary evidence. He was not conscious further of any action of his that could thought an abuse of his position on ther commission. By Mr MacGregor: In 1910 the firm of Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. consisted of : himself, Mr Wright, Mr Maurice Louisspn,, and Mr Alfred Louisson. Recently Mr. Wright had retired. Witness had had no-, thing to do with the Merchants' Association so long as it did not interfere with him and attempt to get illegal advantages. Do they attempt that?— Most decidedJy. Since when?— April 1, 1911. "A good day to ©tart," commented Mr> MacGregor. ■'•*■ Witness further stated that when the Com-, mercial Trusts Act' came into operation he refused to join the Merchants' Association, as it gave, he considered, illegal advantages to the members comprising it. Thereupon a fight ensued between the association'and his firm.

' I suggest that Mr Fairbairn went on that commission >for the purpose of helping' his business," said Mr MacGregor in the course of an exohango with Sir John Findlay. "I did nothing of tho kind," said Mr Fairbairn. "My business suffered to a groat extent, and acrimonious correspondence' occurred with firms in Europe and else* where."

When asked why he had been appointed,' witness said ho could not say. Ife was, however, known to three members of the Cabinet, and with two of them—Mr George-, iAUrienson and Mr JBuxton —he ifaad had business transactions.

" Absolute falsity," said Mr Pairbairh to a suggestion by Mr MacGregor that the ; Hon. T. Mackenzie had guaranteed Mr Fairbairn on starting his business. He bad known Mr Mackenzie personally only since 1900. _ -■

" Did you henr Bowyer mention Reckitt'a blue:" fcekrd Mr MacGregor. " I can't say," said witness. " I don't to-. collect." Witness remembered tho publica-,, tion of a letter from Mr Godfrey (chairman, of tho Merchants' Association Christ-/ church) in October, 1911, in which Mr" Godfrey drew attention to a statement matte by a witness that a remission of duty of 3d per lb had been made, which was incorrect, as onlv Id had been remitted. He also remembered the publication in September, 1911, of a letter from Mr Godfrey reflecting iroor. witness. He hod taken legal advice about that letter, and more might yet be hoard about it.

"Oh." said Mr MaeGregor, "so you *»«> juet lyinir back waiting to bring actions against tho Press and Lvttelton Times?" "I didn't say so." said the witness.

The oross-exammation of the witness was not concluded at 5.10 p.m., when the court rose.