THE MARINE SCANDAL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2368, 20 July 1899, Page 18

THE MARINE SCANDAL.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION. CAPTAIN ALLMAN'S ALLEGATIONS,

WELLINGTON, July 11.

The commission to inquire into the marine scandal sat 'this morning in the City Council Chamber, the use of which "was obtained in consequence of complaints about the uncomfortable nature of the room in the Supreme Court Buildings used yesterday. Quite a number of counsel were in attendance. Besides Mr Hanlon, Dr Findlay l-epresented Captain Allman ; Mr Grey, Captain Jones ; Mr Travers, Captain Edwin and Mr Allport. The Hon. T.- W. Hislop said he intended to appear for Mr Pirani, who had formulated certain charges against Mr Seddon.

Mr Travers asked the Crown to give an assurance that the witnesses' should be protected against any incriminatory evidence they might give; otherwise, as far as his clients were concerned, he would not feel justified in allowing them to answer any questions that might affect their official positions.

Mr Hanlon said he had no power to do this. He then went on to sketch tho case he had to lay before the commission. 'He gave the history of the charges and read the speech made in the House by Mr J. Hutcheson on which those charges -were based. - In regard to the suggestion alleged to have been made by Captain -Allman that Captain Jones might_ get a "permit" and sit for his examination as master without possessing a mate's certificate, the court were asked by what authority such permission could- be granted. He (Mr Hanlon) did not suggest any authority, but merely stated the fact. Captain Allman here interrupted counsel in his statement that the Minister for Marine had handed Captain Allman a memo, axithorising Captain Jones to be examined, exclaiming " It's a lie," and was forthwith ordered out of court.

Captain Allman, on tendering an apology, was readmitted. The first witness called was

The Premier, who explained that on a former occasion he had declined to give evidence before a Royal Commission on constitutional grounds, but the circumstances of this case were different, and he intended to assist the court all in his power in coming to a correct conclusion on the subject. He wished the whole truth to appear. He then proceeded to give evidence on the lines of his statement before the Supreme Court. The main points of this evidence were that he never know anything about Captain Jonas's application for a master's certificate until after Mr Hutcheson's speech in the House, but that he did think Jones was entitled to a service certificate, about which representations had been made to him. The Minister for Marine was quite right in showing to Captain Allman the telegram that witness had sent from Auckland, asking that Jones's application for a service certificate should he favourably considered. He knew nothing - about Jones's application to be examined. He (the Premier) had asked Mr Hutcheson for names in connection with his indictment, biit he refused. Later on, however, he gave Yon Sehoen's name.- Captain Allman then denied that there was any truth in Mr Hutcheson's allegations, saying that they all arose from Jones and out of gome papers that were torn up.

In. the course of. his evidence the Premier said that when he left for England the position was that he considered the matter of granting a service certificate open, and if

satisfactory proof was forthcoming, Jones would get the certificate. During the voyage to Auckland he spoke with Captain Fairchild, and it was in consequence of what lie said that witness wired to the -Minister for Marine, " I should bo glad if you would have the question of issuing a certificate to Captain Jones, of Duco, settled. From the

papers presented to me I am of opinion he is entitled to what he wants, and much better qualified than (certain persons named). Cap-

tain Allman thinks ho id well qualified." After Mr Hutche?on's speech in the House

he immediately instituted inquiries, being much concerned, and caw Mr Hutoheson, who declined to reveal the name of his in-

formant,

Witness pointed out to Mr Hutche-

son that he was placing himself in a false position and under a heavy responsibility, and all witness's desire was to probe the whole matter to the bottom before the House sat again. Mr Hutcheson told him Captain Yon Schoen was his informant. Witness had confidence in Captain Allman, and having his assurance and that of Mr Glasgow, decided not to send for Captain Yon Schoen. Ho preferred to believe the officers of his department. Witness remembered telling Mr Hutcheson all he knew was that Captain Jpnes had applied for a service certificate. Witness then, referred to- a .number of departmental memo?. One was a letter by Mr George Allport, explaining that he tad not revealed certain information given to him by Yon Schoen because he had (not then knowing how serious its import would be) given his word to treat it as confidential. The documents further showed that after Mr

Hulcheson's speech in the House Mr Allport had told Yon Schoen he must release him

from his promise not to reveal this informaI tion. Witness read tho correspondence be- ' >.waen himself and Mr Hutckeson having re-

ference to Yon Schoen' s position in regard to alleged irregularities.

On the Marine Commission resuming this afternoon, Mr Hanlon continued the examination of Mr Seddon witir reference to departmental* correspondence. Witness said lie left Wellington after the House prorogued, in November, 1898, and it was towards the end of the month before he learnt from Mr Hall.fonea or Mr Glasgow that there was some foundation for" Air Hutcheson's charges in the House. Witness bad up to this time disbelieved the allegations, as lie had faith in the department/ and had not much belief in Yon Schoen, whom he knew had been an applicant for Captain Allman's position. When witness returned to Wellington; towards the- end of November, and after conversation with Mr Glasgow, it was decided that charges 'should be formulated with respect to Mr j Hutcheson's allegation. Captain Allman was asked by letter to furnish a report upon the charges, and this he did very fully to the Minister for Marine. Before Captain Allman's written statement wa3 received someone (witness was not sure whether it was Mr Glasgow) told him (witness) verbally that Captain- Allman had admitted the truth of Mr Hutcheson's charges. Mr Seddon then read the confidential report upon Mr idutcheson's charges which Captain Allman had sent iv. In this report Captain Allman mentioned that'on one occasion Yon Schoen urged him to let , his (Yon Schoen' s) candidates pass the marine examinations in preference to a rival teacher's pupils, and made allusion to making it worth his while to pass his (Yon Sclioen's) men ; but Captain Allman would not listen to the suggestion — not if -Yon • Schoen gave him the whole- of New Zealand. Captain Allman proceeded: — "Until Yon Schoen tried to bribe me. I had no idea of his real motive**. Had I not been so soft-hearted^, perhaps Jones's affaii' would not have occurred." Captain Allman added that he had not tendered this full explanation with a view of justifying, his conduct. _ He knew he did wrong on the impulse of the moment. He (Captain Allman) considered sufficient evidence " had been furnished to convict Yon Schoon of a misdemeanor without calling any witnesses. Captain Allman stated that he had given the whole facts as far as he could remember them, and lie felt sure the Ministry would not damn his reputation for life through being sold by a false friend.

Mr Seddon also read other departmental correspondence on the subject, including a communication from Mr Glasgow, giving an opinion that Captain Allman's conduct had rendered him unfit to continue in the public sorvice, recommending his dismissal, suggesting the question of a prosecution, and -the cancellation of Captain. Jones's certificate. Mr Seddon went on to say that in consequence of the advice tendered by the Solicitorgeneral, the Government decided to proceed cautiounly in the matter. Witness approved of the recommendations made by Mr Glasgow, and Captain Allman was suspended on December 27. Witness wrote to the Minister for Marine endorsing Mr Glasgow's recommendations, and urging that searching investigation be' made into the issue of the marine certificate, and stating that the action of Mr Allport in withholding from the head of the department for some timo certain information given to him by Yon Schoen was reprehensible, and required explanation. The point which witness wanted clearing up was why Mr Allport had kept that information from the head of his department so long after he had intimated to Yon Schoen that he must be released from his promise to treat it as confidential. At an interview in the Cabinet room Captain Allman admitted he had given way in a weak moment to Captain Jones's pleadings. Witness could not say whether Captain Allman had askod the Government to be allowed to resign. Witness believed thai Captain Allman did give way to Jones's pleadings on the spur of the moment. Captain Allman never alleged collusion in regard to the examination. When down on the West Coast witness had a suggestion fpom the Minister for Marine* which gave him the impression that only Captain Allman should be proceeded against, but to this -witness emphatically objected. If proceedings were to bo taken, they should be against all three — Allman, Jones, and Yon Schoen. Replying to a communication from the Marine department asking him to say whether lie admitted or denied the formal charges made against him of having negligently, irregularly, and improperly conducted the examination of Captain Jones, Captain Alknau wrote at considerable length detailing the circumstances in extenuation of his conduct. In that letter Captain Allman said : —

1. "I was of opinion Jones was an excellent seaman, and was an experienced shipmaster, so that no danger would arise from his possessing a certificate which made him a coastal master.

2 "I was plainly led to understand that it was the desire of the Premier and Mr HallJones that Captain Jones should got the certificate he applied for.

3. "Each and all of the officers of the Marine department I have mentioned were more or less aware of the same fact.

4. " I do not dosire to inculpate any of my fellow-officers, but I must point, out that each and all of my fellow-officers were aware of the fundamental irregularity which the Minister himself had permitted in dispensing with the requisite mate's certificate, and as I found each of these gentlemen willing to overlook this irregularity for the apparent purpose of carrying the Minister's wishes into effect I was, weakly perhaps, induced to fall in with these wishes and facilities as I did, Captain Jones obtaining a certificate of coastal master."

Mr Seddon said ha desired to repeat the statement he had already made, thai he was

not aware of Jones having passed an examination, or having been asked to undergo an examination: Nothing had transpired be- . tween witness and Captain Allman in regard to Jones .going up for examination. In' support of tlus, witness produced the deparlmen- ' tal minutes to show that all he had to do in the matter was in regard to a service certificate of Captain Jones, in which, the latter said ho understood, from a conversation he had wilJi Mr Seddon on board the 'steamer Duchess, " that it would be all right in regard to his certificate." Mr Seddon said this statement was absolutely devoid of truth, and he had only made a commonplace remark to Jones during the course of a conversation in which, several other gentlemen were taking part. The Commission adjourned till 11 a.m. tomorrow. »

CHARGES FORMULATED.

Mr Pirani has formulated charges before the Marine Commission against the Premier of endeavouring to procure the issue of a service certificate to Captain Jones ; of boasting to Jones, knowing he was not entitled to it, that he had procured him a certificate of competency ; of denying iv Parliament that any irregularity had taken "place, though he knew Jones had recoived a certificate in contravention -of the law j of stating he had not written, or talked to tho Minister for Marine on the subject, though he4iad urged him. by telegraip to grant a service certificate ; that a certificate has been improperly issued to certain persons named in the telegram, and the Premier had taken no steps to cancel them. Mr Pirani also charges Mr Hall-Jones with wrongfully using his power to order Captain Jonss to be examined; with allowing ' him for a long time to retain his certificate after he knew it was improperly obtained frithout' taking steps to cancel it ; with inducing Captain Allman to make an incorrect report and causing it to bo published :' and with sending a telegram to the Premier, stating that the latter had no conversation with him on the matter, and thereby suppressing mention of the Premier's telegram to him from Auckland.

On the Royal Commission to inquire into the marine scandal meeting this morning. Judge Ward ruled that several of Mr Firani's charges against Mr Seddon and Mr HallJones were out of order. He said that no action-at-law could lie in regard to a conversation which was alleged to have taken place between Mr Seddon and Captain Jones, and the commission had, therefore, decided, to strike out .the eecond of Mr Pirani'B charges, which referred to Mr Seddon having boasted to Captain Jones that he had- procured him a certificate of competency under the Shipping and Seamen's Act. The commission also held that no action-at-law could lie for words spoken in the course of a debate in the House, and obviously no such charge as that which had been made upon statements in, the House could be inquired into by a tribunal like a Royal Commission. The comiriifsioners, therefore, struck out from Mr Pirani's charges all allegations against the and Mr Hall-Jones which were founded upon statements made in a debate in the House. Mr Seddon, under examination by Mr Hanlon, continued to read voluminous correspondence- relating to the Marine department's affairs. He read a joint letter signed by three candidates, complaining of the unfair method if conducting marine examinations. -Captain AllmanV reply to these charges was' that .they were a tissue of lies. The departmental replies being considered satisfactory, the Government took- no action in the matter. He (Mr Seddon) wished -to • say that neither directly nor indirectly had he interfered with or influenced the officers of the Marine department. The lesponsibility was theirs from the beginning to the end. In consequence of a question asked in the House, tlie Government had made full inquiry into the regulations governing the adjustment of ships' compasses, and as a result it was found that Yon Schoen was practically the only person in Wellington who was entitled under those regulations to adjust compasses. Cross-examined by Dr Findlay (who appeared for Captain Allman, Mr Seddon said Yon Schoen had held the positions-of nautical assessor for tlio Government and adjuster of compasses, and he had pretty well the run of the Marino department office. Yon Schoen had two grievances — one in regard to Captain Allman's position, and the other because of tho loss of nautical assessor's work in 1897. He did not know how Yon Schoen had become acquainted with certain official information. Cross-examined by Mr Gray (who appeared for Captain Jones), Mr Seddon said the department reported against a service certificate being issued to Jones, but witness thought if Jones could prove that the department was wrong, and ,hat he (Jones) was right, he should get his certificate. Witness' 3 opinion was that Jones was a much safer man for coastal work than scores of others who had the class of certificate that he (Jones) was ap: plying for. As to Jones's affidavit, he did not know when he had met him on the Duchess. As to_his statement that he (Mr Seddon) had obtained any certificate, witness was positive no reference was made to a service certificate on that trip. Cross-examined by Mr Travers (for Mr Allport and Captain Edwin), Mr Seddon said ho liad thorough confidence in his officers. He believed still there was 110 collusion between. Captain Allman and Jones, nor did Allman know what was going on between. Jones and Yon Schoen. It would have saved Mr Allport a great deal of anxiety if he had taken the head of his department (Mr Glasgow) into his confidence in regard to what Yon Schoen had imparted to him, even if he mentioned the matter to him without giving any dames. Reforrine to Jones's affidavit. Mr Beddon

repeated his denial that any such statement ("that he had fixed it all right") was ever made by him. Several other persons were present at the time, and it was hardly likely that he would enter upon the discussion of a departmental matter before them. Besides, at this time he did not know Jones had obtained a certificate. The whole thing, as far as his recollection served him, w.as untrue, y , The"full : statement attributed' to Mr Sed-. clon was: — "I fixed that all rightr Tor' you," old man. I put my foot down, as I was determined I would accomplish what you asked me to do, in spite of the lot of them." Mr Seddon, in further cross-examination, said he did not then know Jones had obtained a certificate, and the whole thing, as far as his recollection-served him, was untrue.

Mr Seddon was cross-examined by Mr Hislop, who appeared in support of Mr Pirani's charges. Mr Seddon said Mr Ward was Minister-for Marine when the application was first put in by Captain Jones. Witness did not know where the envelope was on which he wrote " Can anything be done to get over this difficulty."

Mr Hislop: You do not know where it is?

Mr Seddon : No. It has been & puzzle to me.

Mr Hislop: Did you give it to Captain Jones?

Mr Seddon: I could not say. Continuing, Mr Seddon said he believed the envelope contained documents, and was returned to Captain Jonei.

Witness was questioned at some length as to representations which were made to him on Jones's behalf, and the date on which he made the memo, on the envelope, but he said he could not be certain as to the dates. No deputation from any ladies' political organisation had wailed on him in regard to the matter. Ladies had certainly waited on him in the matter, but not from any organisation. Before witness left for Auckland, nothing had been done in regard to the further proof of Jones's service, although he believed some representations had been made to the Minister for Marine. - Witness saw Captain Jones before he left Wellington, but he could not recollect whether or not he promised to wire from Auckland 'on the matter. When witness wired from Auckland, he wanted to have the matter settled, as it had been hanging over since 1595.

Witness was examined at some length as to why he interfered in Jones's matter, and why he did not leave it so'iely to his colleague, the Minister for Marine. Mr Seddon's reply ■was that he had thorough and complete confidence in his colleague, but as Prime Minister of the colony, ho exercised general supervision over all departments, and there was a constitutional precedent for his doing so. He (Mr Seddon) had been Minister for Marine, and •was thoroughly conversant with the whole working of the department. When he left for England, he was completely satisfied that he was leaving everything in safe hands. The first time witness saw the telegram he had sent to Mr Hall-Jones from Auckland was in court. He did not keen a copy of it. The only application witness had before him for a certificate was that of Captain Jone3, and Mr John Hutcheson's statement bore him ■(witness) out in this. After Mr Hutcheson made his allegations in the Houso, witness liad a conversation with Mr Hall-Jones on the matter, but witness did not then mention Captain Jones's name to him or raise the point whether the charges referred to Captain Jones. Witness did not then know that Captain Jones had obtained a master's certificate. Witness only had in his mind the eervice certificate, consequently Mr Hutcheison's statements did not suggest themselves 4o him as applying to Captain Joned. Further, there was nothing in Mr Hutcheson's allegations to show that they referred to a Wellington case. He ewore positively that lie never spoke to Mr Hall-Jones about Captain Jones or his certificate prior to his leaving for England. So much confidence had he (witness) in Captain Allman that he had never thought of Mr ' Hutcheson's charges liaving reference to him. In the message witness submitted io the Press Association at Dunedin, he did not say he did not know Captain Jones. That statement was incorrect on the face of it. \Vhat he did say was that he did not know anything about Captain Jones's examination. He thought he was justified in that message in sUting that he had no communication with Mr Hall-Jones in reference to Captain Jones in his examination. When Mr Hutcheson's charges were made, Mr Hall-Jones seemed as surprised as he (Mr Seddon) was. *

Mr Seddon was then relieved from further attendance. Mr Seddon,, on leaving, eaid if he could throw any further light on the case or be of any more assistance he ■would be most happy to give it. He asked that Messrs A. G. Johnson, John Plimmer, and A. It. Hislop, who were present on board 'the Duchess when he (Mr Seddon) was alleged to have made reference to Jones's certificate, should be Bubpoenaed % to give evidence. Mr Seddon added that he did not wish to do Captain Jones an injustice, but lie thought he hail got mixed up in that instance, and he (Mr Seddon) wanted the matter cleared up.

These subpoenas were ordered to issue, and the commission adjourned till to-morrow. July 13. At this morning'? sitting of the JRoyal Commission to inquire into the marine scandal, A. B. Hislop, commission agent, gave evidence that he was in the saloon of the Duchess with Mr Seddon, Captain Jones, and eeveral other gentlemen on the trip of that eteamer to Day Bay some eighteen months ago. Only some- few commonplace remarks passed between the -fremier and Jones. Nothing was said that witness could remember as being of a serious business nature. He never heard Mr Seddon make remarks about a_ certificate which Jones had attributed to him. If he had made such remarks witness must have heard them, as the saloon is very small.

Cross-examined by Mr Gray : Ho had known Jones for over twenty years, and regarded him as a straightforward man, who was not likely to invent a lie.

A. G. Johnston, secretary of the Benevolent Institution, who was also present on that occasion, gave similar evidence. So far as lie could recollect, only ordinary greetings passed between the Premier and Jones. Had Mr Setldon made the remark attributed to him. by Jones, witness thought everyone present would have heard it, as the cabin is so email. Jones was only present for two or three minutes.

Cross-examined by Mr Gray : He could not cay what happened on the trip back from Day Bay. All he could say was that he never heard the remark made on the journey across.

It. E. Bannister, who was in the cabin of the Duchess on the occasion referred to, stated that he never heard the remark al leged to have been mad by Mr Seddon. The Hon. Mi Hall-Jones, Minister for Marine and Public Works, was thr next witness. The first time he met Captain Jones, lie said, was about the end of 1896, when he came to JEit&aas and complained that he had applied

to the Marine department for a service certificate, but could not obtain it. Witness locked into Ihe matter, and found that the department had recommended that a certificate should not be granted in consequence of certain mistakes or errors in the litt of service. When Captain Jones came to see witness agaip, witness told him how the matter slopd.- - J_n April, 1897^ witness received a telegram from: the Premier from Auckland. (This is the felegrainv'frequently referred to in the evidence.) Witness asked Captain Allman whether there was anything fresh in the matter, and Captain Allman replied in the negative. About three weeks after the receipt' of the Premier's telegram witness had a third visit from Jones, who asked him to reconsider the decision about the service certificate, but this witness declined to do, upon the advice of the responsible officers of the department. In consequence of what Jones said, witness got Captain Allman and Jonee face to face, and the former repeated that Jones was not entitled to a service certificate. It was at this interview that witness first heard tho question of a master's certificate mentioned, and witness advised Jones to study for it. The question of permission to sit for the examination also cropped up, and witness made the following memo, on an envelope: "Jones Duco permit exam, master." Witness was in the habit of making memos. in this manner for his own guidance. They were never intended to be taken as instructions. Before leaving the room, Captain Allman said he would look into the question of a permit for the examination, and witness told him to take the envelope a« a reminder. After the charges were made in the House, Captain Allman protested to witness that there was no truth in them, but subsequently he said to witness that the charges alluded to a man he (witness) knew, or a man who knew him (witness). Later on, in the course of another conversation, Captain Allman told witness that Captain Jonas had brought papers to the examiners' room which had been worked out for him, but he (Captain Allman) had destroyed them all. Witness believed Captain Allman, and it was some time afterwards that witness began to have feelings that, despite Captain Allman's assurances, there wan something in Mr Hutcheson s charges. Eventually witness received Captain Allman's first statement, of the whole case (which has already been published). Witness's account of what transpired after this corroborated the Premier's statement. Beyond Mr Seddon's telegram about a service certificate, witness and Mr Seddon had no communication about Jones until the revelations were made, and witness believed that until that time Mr Seddon had no idea- Jones had got his competency certificate. When the case was before the Supreme Court, witness learned, much to his surprise and alarm, that his memo, on the envelope had been used by Mr Allporl, chief clerk, as Ministerial authority for Jones sitting for the master's examination without having the necessary mate's certificate. Witness never intended any such use to be made of Ms memo.

After the luncheon adjournment Mr HallJones continued his evidence. He read a letter from Mr Allport, chief clerk, explaining why he had taken the memo, on the envelope to imply Ministerial authority for Jones's examination. The letter was as follows: —

To the secretary Marine department. — As regards the examination of James Jones for master's certificate without his being required to show a year's service whilst in possession of a mate's certificate, the attached note (Mr HallJones's envelope) was given to me on the Bth July, 1897, by Captain Allman, who stated that Mr Hall-Jones had instructed him to bring it, and tell the department to give the necessary instructions for dispensing with the requirements as to a master's certificate. He said that he had suggested to the Minister that this might be 'done, as the certificate required wa* one which was only available in New Zealand, and as Jones had for a long time been master of the Mana and Duco. On the same day I inserted the date which appears on the note, brought it in and showed it to you, and then gave it out for record. It was duly recorded, and instructions were written to the collector of customs on the same date. Mr Glasgow, secretary of the department, sent the following memo, to the Minister : —

Mr Allport is now quite certain that facts are as above stated. I have no very distinct recollection of having had the note in your handwriting put before me, but I cannot contradict the positive recollection 'of Mr Allport on that point. Mr Hall-Jones said he then sent the following memo, to Mr Glasgow: —

Allman'a statement that I instructed him to tell the department to give the necessary instructions for dispensing with requirements as to a master's certificate in Jones's case is without the slightest foundation. I was not aware until the other day that regulations had not been adhered to. It is astonishing to find that a rough note made up on an envelope signed by no one,, addressed to no one, and undated, has been deemed sufficient authority for a breach of the regulations. Mr Glasgow replied as follows: —

After endeavouring to recall the circumstances under which the envelope with your note on it came to Ijc recorded, I am now able definitely to corroborate what Mr Allport has stated is the case, that he brought the envelope to me, and told me it ca.me through Captain Allman, who had stated when handing it to Mr Allport that the Minister had agreed to allow Jones to be examined. I remember commenting on the irregularity, but 1 concluded that the matter had been fully discussed between yomself and Captain Allman, and I contented myself with directing Mr Allport to make a record of the envelope. If, therefore, it is decided that Captain Allman's verbal statement and note on tho envelope are not sufficient Ministerial authority for the memo, which was written to the collector I must accept the responsibility and submit to the censure implied in your minute, which, without these further remarks from me, might hereafter be deemed to be directed against Mr Allport. To this he (Mr Hall- Jones) replied: —

Even with Captain Allman's statement it is surprising that no inquiry was made as to the intention and origin of the envelope with the rough note upon it, and which referred to such an important subject, and the fact of you having commented upon the irregularity without directing that my attention should be called to the meagre authority for sucli an important departure is painful to aie. However, I am aware that your time is fully occupied with customs and other work, and I cannot absolve Mr Allport from the largest measure of the responsibility in the matter.

Judge Ward : Are the commissioners to understand that five words written on the back of an envelope were taken by tho officers of the Marine department as authority for violating an act of Parliament? Mr Hanlon: Yes. Thai, together with the statement made by Captain Allman to Mr Allport. Judge Ward: The ttatgment should never h%\e bean accented.

Mr Hall-Jones raad further correspondence on the subject. Witness went on to ?ay that he heard Mr Glasgow's statement in court that he showed witness the envelope in July, 1537, b.-f ore it " was acted , upon, but tlie correspondence he had just read from Mr Glasgow did not mention this. Witness's whole complaint was that the envelopes had not ■ been . referred to "him, and Mr Glasgow had admitted 'that' hse should have submitted the^envelope to -him (witness). Witness was absolutely certain that the envelope did not come before him, and the. trend of the whole of the correspondence he had read bore this out. Witness was very much pained and annoyed that an officer of his department (Air Allport) had obtained information early in 1893 regarding the securing of a certificate by fraud and had not referred the same to Mr Glasgow or himself. He felt strongly that Mr Allport should have mentioned the matter to the head of the department, even without disclosing names. Witness verbally told Mr Glasgow to suspend Mr Allport, but Mr Glasgow begged witness uot io do so, as he could not do without Mr Allport. In deference to Mr Glasgow's wishes no action was taken then, and Mr Allport remained in his position. With regard to Captain Jones's affidavit, i Witness said the references Captain Jones made therein to him (Hall-Jones) were in nearly every respect incorrect. Witness never saw Allman and Jones after the fourth interview, which took place' in his office, and at which the question of an examination permit was discussed. There was 'a good deal of matter mentioned in Captain Allman's second statement of which witness had no knowledge whatever.

Witness was cross-examined at some length by Dr Fincllay as to what took place at the interview between witness, Captain Allman. and Captain Jones, at which witness handed Captain Allman the envelope. Witness said he was quite certain he handed the envelope to Captain Allman, although Allman gave a different version of the affair. In handing the envelope to Captain Allman witness regarded the matter as being off his, mind, and gave it no further thought, knowing that if a permit was to be granted it would come* before him (witness) in the ordinary course. Witness was not aware that a permit had ever been given to sit for examination in a case in which the regulations had not been oomplied with. It was untrue that Captain Allman had witness's authority to dispense with sv mate's certificate a,nd allow Jones to sit for his master's certificate. '

Cross-examined by Mr Gray, Mr Hall-Jones stated that he had made hundreds of similar memos. on envelopes. Witness knew that his version of occurrences in connection with the waiving of the necessity for a mate's certificate were contradicted by Captains Allman and Jones and Messrs Glasgow ami Allport. He looked upon Mr Glasgow as a cautious man, who would not unwittingly state what he knew to be untrue.

Cross-examined by Mr Travers, witness said his memo, might bear the erroneous interpretation that had been put upon it, but this erroneous interpretation should not have taken place in the Marine department. Witness did not express surprise whence found Captain Jones had gone up for his examination, because the whole affair had gone out of his memory. The Commission adjourned till 10-morrow.

July 14.

At the sitting of the Royal Commission to inquire into the marine scandal, Mr Glasgow was re-examined by Mr Hanlon. He said that in all communications he had had with Mr Hall- Jones, since what witness termed " being banished from the Minister's office," he (Mr Hall-Jones) had not betrayed any irritation whatever, and had treated him (witness) with his usual consideration and courtesy. Witness did not remember Captain Allman saying that he (witness), as official head of the department, could stop the memo., as it was not too late.

Mr Findlay : Well, Allman is very clear on that point. Will you swear that he didn't cay it? — I have no recollection of it. Witness (continuing) said he denied having told Captain Allman that "if he knew these people so long as he did he would not trust them." Witness did not say anything equivalent to it, nor words to that effect. Dr Fitchetl, who was the next witness, detailed the interview that took place between Mr Glasgow and himself. Mr Glasgow came to him before the Supreme Court case was heard, and said he was afraid that he would have to' contradict the Minister's statement that he did not know his envelope memo, had been used as Ministerial authority. • Mr Glasgow added that he would have to say that he showed Mr Hall- Jones the memo, before the examination of Jones look place. Witness remarked that it was an extraordinary tale to tell at this time of clay, but Mr Glasgow replied that he would have to say it. Witness remarked upon Mr Glasgow's memory being blank up to a certain stage, and said thnt his memory must be peculiarly treacherous. When Mr Hall-Jones heard of this he was very angry, and said it was a lie, but witness told him that he considered that Mr Glasgow thought he was giving a conscientious statement of the case from his point of view.

Cross-examined : Witness said that he did not regard what Mr Glasgow had told him as private or confidential. The theory that witness had formed was thai the impression in Mr Glasgow's mind had grown into conviction. Such cases wore not of uncommon occurrence. The word " permit " (noun) had always been used to witness in the early Btages of the case. The verb was not suggested till late in the case.

In reply to Mr Glasgow, witness said that ho had never heard that the slate of his memory was such as to interfere with the discharge of his duties.

George Allport, chief clerk of the Marine department, stated that when he approached Mr Glasgow about the Minister's memo, he was perfectly positive that Mr Glasgow taid he would see the Minister about it. When tiiis document first cam* out in the Supreme Court witness did not remember that Mr Glasgow had said he had actually seen the Minister about it. He racked his brains to bring the matter back to his recollection, but at the same time he had a conviction that Mr Glasgow did tell him that ho had seen the Minister about it. Subsequently the whole thing flashed clearly across his mind in this) w.'iy : He suddenly recollected asking Mr Glasgow why Mr Hall-Jones had not feigned the memo., and Mr Glasgow's answer was that he did not like to ask him (the Minister) to sign it, as ho did not want to throw any doubt on the Minister's word. Mr Glasgow added : "It does not matter much, as Jones will not pass." All this was now very clear in witness's memory. When the correspondence (already quoted) was written witness was not clear as to Ihe circumstances. Mr Glasgow's explanation to the Minister was not the outcome of witness liaving jogged his memory. At that stage both witness's and Glasgow's memory had failed them in regard to Mr Glasgow bavins: taken the memo, to the Minister.

Witness only had a glimmering recollection of it then, and it was not until the question was Siked in the Supreme Court that the whole thing came back to witness's memory in a flash. On witness mentioning this to Mr Glasgow, the" latter said that it confirmed his own recollection of the matter. ' Witness acted upon Mr Hall-Jones's memo, under instructions from his superior officer. It was early in 1898 that Yon Schoen communicated certain information to witness, who promised to treat it as confidential. Yon Schoen said that the examinations in Wellington were getting worse instead", of better, and cited Jones's and two other cases. Witness did not think at the time that there was anything more in that information than was often given to officers of the department. He did not think that there was anything in the allegations, and rather ridiculed them until the books were brought, and witness then saw that there was some truth in them. Witness then told Yon Schoen that it was rather unfair that he (witness) should have to keep this secret, and thought that he should be allowed to tell ihe secretary of the department, bub Yon Schoen declined to allow him to do so. Even after Mr Hutcheson's speech was made Yon Schoen declined to release witness from his pledge, saying that he would tell the Premier in his own way. Witness did not inform Mr Glasgow of tho circumstances until a couple of months afterwards. The commission then adjourned till Mondny.

July 17. At to-day's sitting of the Royal Commission to inquire into the marine scandal, Mr Allport continued his evidence. Ifc was when the case was before the Supreme Court witness remembered that Mr Glasgow had told him that he had shown the memo, on the envelope to the Minister. He did not tell the Minister, and did not ask to be re-examined ,in court, nor draw the Solicitor-general's attention to the fact. All examination papers came into witnesses's custody. He did the chief clerk's work in the office, and 'took -Mr Glasgow's directions. Yon Schoen often came to the office making complaints about candidates not passing, and about relations (sic). Yon • Schoen never saw the examination papers. He had seen that statement, but he gave it an unqualified denial. He would have insisted on Yon Schoen giving him permission to divulge his confidential information had it not leaked out otherwise. Cross-examined : Witness said that Jones applied first in 1895 to be examined for a master's certificate. !Tho statement of his sea service was in Yon Schoen' s handwriting, and j'ifc was incorrect that he never asked 'Von^, Schoen why he had made a false statement. Captain Allman told witness that Ministers desired Jones to get his master's certificate. Personally, he understood that they wanted him. to get a service certificate, but not improperly. He did not think there was any harm in Jones sitting for his examination, as he 'did not think that he would pass. Ho admitted that dispensing with the mate's certificate was illegal, but it was done in deference to the Minister's wish. When the papers were handed to witness, showing that Jones had passed, he examined them, but it did not then strike him that the handwriting in the body was different to Jones's certificate. , He did not pay much attention to this, having no suspicion that anything was wrong. Captain ■ Allman told him that Jones had got on fairly ! well, but he was not hard on him. Yon { Schoen told witness that he had held Jones's hand while writing the answers in the papers, but he thought that Schoen merely wished to pass his pupil. He felt bound by his promise of secrecy. He afterwards examined the papers that came in more particularly. He still considered that he would have been guilty of a dishonourable thing if he had divulged what Yon Schoen had told him, even after Yon Schoen had told Mr Hutcheson. He was not told by Captain Allman that Yon Schoen had offered a bribe to him to pass Jones. Yon Schoen could not have seen the examination papers in witness's room.' i To Mr Gray: Jones's reputation for sea- ] manship was very good, and his literary abilities as good as hundreds who now hold service certificates. Some of them signed their names with a mark. He had never previously heard of a mate's certificate being dispensed with. It was illegal, and was- done only by a Minister's direction. To Mr Travers : By dispensing with his certificate there was no jeopardy of life or property. All that was required was to pass in a few simple sums. Captain Allman brought the Minister's authority for dispensing with this certificate direct from the Alinister himself. At the afternoon sitting Mr Allport, crossexamined by Mr Travers, said that up to the Jones case no irregularity or impropriety hod taken place in connection with the examinations. On one occasion he differed with Captain Allman as to allowing a man named Walley to go up for a master's certificate. Witness held that the man was not qualified, and the matter was referred to the Crown law officer, who upheld Captain Allman's view that the man was qualified. The matter was afterwards referred to the Board of Trade, who supported his (witness's) view. That incident did not affect witness's relations with Captain Allman. The regulations were dis]sensed with in the cases of Captains Bendall and Strang, and had Captain Jones passed his examination properly there was nothing in waiving the examination for a mate's certificate. He had evidence to support his statement as to what Yon Schoen had told him. He never heard of Yon Sehoen's offer to bribe Captain Allman to pass Captain Jones until later on. Yon Schoen had no more the run of the office than any member of the public. Captain Marciel, who was specially appointed to examine the papers, had found very few mistakes. Cross-examined by Mr Hislop : Witness said Yon Schoen was employed as nautical assessor up till July, 1697, and afterwards held a license as_ adjuster of compasse?. Cross-examined by Mr Atkinson : Witness 1 paid he had heard different masters of vessels express a very high opinion of Yon Sehoen's qualifications as adjuster of compasses. Witness read a number of letters to the Minister for Marino from Yon Schoen in ]892, alleging that certain examinations for certificates had been conducted a f Napier loosely. Witness was examined as to a number of other irregularities in "connection with examinations for certificates. Under re-examination by Mr Hanlon, wit- , ness stated that he, never saw any instruction

from the Premier directing that Yon Eehoeif . was not to get the whole of the work of adjusting the compasses. The papers for tha examination came from the Government Printing Office, marked "confidential," and were locked up, 'The effect of giving -a certificate for the tug Mana to go outside the harbour limits was that a certificated maslei had to be in charge in such cases. The service did not count to Captain Jones, as ht was not in charge of the vessel. Mr H. Gully, solicitor, gave evidence as to being present in the Hon. Mr Hall- Jones' a room when the latter complained that one of his officers had acted in the matter without duo authority. Cross-examined by Mr B. Gray : Was acting for the Marine department in the prosecutions against Allman and Jones. The Hon. Mr Hall-Jones and Mr Glasgow were in tha Minister's room when witness arrived, and the former expressed surprise that his officers should act upon the memo, in regard to sitting for the examination as master. When the civil case against Jones came before the court he was instructed by the Minister' that the evidence given by Mr Allport was incorrect.

Cross-examined by Mr Hislop:.The memo, on the envelope was taken by the officers ai authority to waive the- mate's examination. The ' Minister complained- of .-the officers' interpretation of such a rough memo. He advised the M inister that in consequence of tin decision in the Jones~case 4he case against Yon Schoen should be "withdrawn.* 1 Cross-examined by Mr Atkinson: Would say that Mr Glasgow was- a high-minded and honourable man, and should say that such s thing as -political pressure was not unknown. The political head of a" department ..was in the abstract more susceptible of political pressure than the permanent head of the department. He should, not think 'Mr Glasgow was at all susceptible to' political pressure. Mr Horneman (private secretary to the Hon. , Mr Hall-Jones) gave evidence that it was the practice of the Minister to make memos. upon envelopes or loose sheets of paper, but lie never knew such memos. being used as authority for official acts. / Cross-examined by Dr Findlay: Witness eaid lie first c.aw the memo, on the envelope in January -last, but he was quite certain he did not take the" message from 'the Hon. Mr Hall-Jones to Mr Allport. Cross-examined by Mr Gray : The Minister, previous, ' to , this matter cropping up, frequently had memoranda lying loosely about his table, but he had been more careful since. He had never heard until now that it had been suggested that the memo, had been abstracted from the Minister's table. Cross-examined by Mr Hislop: He" had sometimes seen ,15 or 20 envelope memos. on the Minister's table.

The commission then adjourned till tomorrow.