MR HINE'S ALLEGATIONS

Otago Witness, Issue 2955, 2 November 1910, Page 34

MR HINE'S ALLEGATIONS

ADDITION TO THE LIST. CHARGE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. CFbou Otth Own Comiespoxdent.) WELLINGTON, October 28. The special committee appointed by the Hotise to inquire into the charges preferred by Mr J. B. Hine, member for Stratford, against a member and two exmembers of the House sat this morning, when all the preliminaries that- must precede the taking of evidence were eettkd. The members of the committee present were: Mr J. A. Kanan (chairman. Sir Joseph Ward, Messrs W. F. Massev, J. Allen, W. Fraser. A. M Myers', W. C. Buchanan, V. H. Reed, and J. Graham. The Chjftiwnan read telegrams from Mr Symes and Mr Major, the ex-mem-bers against, whom the charges were brought. Both expressed a desire to give evidence. It was resolved, on the motion of Mr Massey, that Mr Hine and the persons charged should have the assistance of counsel. Mr Hine's counsel (Mr M. Myers) was then admitted to join Mr Hine, who was already present. The Chairman: What charge do you propose to take first? ■ Mr Myers: I propose first to- take evidence on the charges against Mr Symes—Nos. 5 and 4. Tha Chairman: Do you wish these charges to be heard as one?—No, sir. My idea is" that I should be ready to £0 on with the fourth immediately I am finished with the third. The Chairman: Will you give us the order in which you desire to have the other charges heard? —It is quite im-matei-'lal about the othcir charges. I propose to give the chairman a list of the witnesses who I propose should be called; but there is another charge which Mr Hine desires to make. Mar Hine then read the following fresh charge, stating that there would probably be further charges before the committee finished its work: That in or about the year 1904 the Government, having taken steps to acquire compulsorily the property known . as the Flaxbourne Estate, and appointed a member of the Legislature—to wit, Thomas Kennedy Maedonald, a member of the Legislative Council—as its assessor, and knowing or believing that by reason of his being a. member of the Legislature thj. said Thomas Kennedy Maedonald ooukl not be paid any remuneration for so acting as assessor, sent the then partner of the said Thomas Kennedy Maedonald, one Alexander Lorimer Wilson, to make a casual inspection of the said property, aaid paid him an exceptional and wholly extravagant fee therefor with the intent or object of indirectly remunerating the said Thomas Kennedy Maedonald or his partner or firm for the servioes of the said Thomas Kennedy Maedonald as such assessor as aforesaid. Mr Massey : Is that a charge against the Hon. T. K. Maedonald? I do not think it is. ' Mr Hine: I look upon it as a charge against the Government. The Chairman: Do you prefer it as a charge against the Government? Mr Hine; Y-ss. Mr A. M. Myers: In what district is the Flaxbourne Estate. The Chairman: In Marlborough. Sir Joseph Ward: I would like Mr Hine to state for the information of the committee in connection with the charges he has already made who is the member who is stated to have accepted a sum of money running into four figures. Mr M. Myers: Mr Kaihan. Sir Joseph Ward: I' would also ask Mir Hine what the newspaper is that is referred to in one of the charges. Mr Hine : It is the Stratford Evening Post. Sir Joseph Ward : Who was the editor then? Mr Hine: Mr Copping. Mr M. Myers said he would suggest that he should give the chairman the list of witnesses he desired to call, and that the committee should summons them. He assumed that it would be the wish of the committee that all witnesses should be sworn. On the motion of Sir Joseph Ward, it was then resolved that charge No. 3 (against. Mr Symes) be heard on Tuesday next. Mr M. Myers was proceeding to raisp the question of witnesses' expenses, when

Sir Joseph Ward said that in hie opinion the witnesses should be paid. Mr Myers: I am obliged to the Prime Minister for that. I take it the committee generally is of the same opinion. Mr Myers proceeded to say that it would save considerable time if be was given facilities to examine particular files prior to calling witnesses. It would also save a considerable amount in the way of witnesses' expenses. Ho would furnish a list of the files which he wanted to the chairman. In further replying to the chairman, Mr Myers said he would require all the departmental files of any department relating to the purchase of the particular estates mentioned in the charges. He would also require the Treasury vouchers and all imprest vouchers and all Native Land Court files in respect to the Te Akau Block. He woxild also require the production of the petitions. It was then resolved on the motion of Sir Joseph Ward that the evidence should be taken on oath, and the committee adjourned till 10 a.m. on Tuesday next. The committee will sit several davs next week. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE. The Legislative Council's Select Committee met. to-day also, and elected the Hon. Mr Callan chairman. It was decided to allow the parties to be represented" by counsel, and to ask the House to allow Mr Hine to give evidence before the committee. It was agreed that if possible the committee sittings should take place at night, so that the inquiry could progress stage by stage with the investigations by the House of Representatives Committee, and genei\ally to expedite the business. THE BREACH OP PRIVILEGE. The complaint of the Legislative Council that the charge brought by Mr Hine against the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, M.L.C., involved a breach of privilege was referred to in the House of Representatives this afternoon. The Prime Minister moved as follows: "That this House admits that a breach of privilege has been committed by Mr Hine in preferring a charge against a member of the Legislative Council, but such breach of privilege was committed by inadvertence, as the charge was made before a Select Committee of the House, and upon the committee reporting to the House it was referred to the Legislative Council." On bsing asked by the Prime Minister whether in his opinion a breach of privilege had been., committed, the Speaker said that it was a breach of privilege for any member to comment in a derogatory manner or make a charge in regard to a member of the other House. Mr Massey suggested that the matter should be deferred to enable authorities to be looked up. It would, he added, be a capital subject to discuss on Monday, for ho had noticed that only unimportant subjects were dealt with on that day. Sir Joseph Ward: I would be quite willing to nave the second reading of the' Land Bill taken on Monday.

i ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HON. T. K. MACDONALD. LENGTHY DISCUSSION. (Fr.on Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 31. Tho Special Committee set up by the Legislative Council met this evening to commence the hearing of the following charge brought by Mr J. B. Hine against the Hon. Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, a member of the Council: "That Thomas Kennedy MacdonaJd, in or about the year 1904, and subsequent years, -while a member of the Legislative Council, either alone or in conjunction with his then partner (a land agent), conducted the sale to the Government of the property of one John Motley Leigh, at Nainai, and the properties of two other persons, and received from the said John Motley Leigh and the vendors of such other properties commissions or other siurs of money, or alternatively the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald and his said partner received the said commissions or other sums and divided .the same." When the committee admitted counsel and the press representatives the chairman inquired from Mr Myers if he were ready to go on with his case. Mr Myers replied that he understood that the meeting was to be only of a .preliminary nature. He would ask the committee to call certain witnesses, and would also suggest that the committee adj journ until any other night this week, say ! Wednesday. The Chairman : Could we not hear Mr J Rin-s's evidence to-night. Mr Myers said that he did not know j that Mr Hine would have ally evidence to I give. Mr Hine had made certain inI quiries. Anything he could say would be ! said by other witnesses. What he could say would really only be hearsay. Mr Skerrett said that Mr Macdonald himself had attended, fully believing that the charge would be investigated that night. They were quite ready and anxious I to go on that night if possible. He could I not understand why Mr Myers should not have applied to tho committee before to summons witnesses. Obviously from the very nature of the charge the witnesses • must be all residents of the city. Why j then should they be brought together i merely to hear Mr Myers's application for j an adjournment. He would say that Mr | Myers did not know that lie (Mr Skerrett) was retained on behalf of Mr Macdonald. He could not help thinking, however, that Mr Macdonald had been treated with scant courtesy in being brought down there that night for no- ; thing. All they could ask was that the charge be heard at the earliest possible moment, j Dr Findlay said that it might be desir- ; able that Mr Hine should explain the innuendo underlying the charge. The

charge as it stood might not contain any innuendo, but he apprehended that Mr Hine might intend his charge to do so. Obviously the committee would be anxious to ascertain the nature of the innuendo. It would help the committee by showing whether the charge was to be limited to the verbal shape it took or whether there was accompanying it any reflection not expressly stated. Mr Myers said that he intended to call evidence" as follows :—(1) In regard to the sale of Mr Leigh's property at Nainai to the Government, which sale was conducted by Mr Macdonald or by his firm, and Mr Hine said that Mr Macdonald received from the vendor commission upon the sale of the property; (2) Mr Hine made a similar allegation in regard to the sale of a portion of the property of Mr and Mrs Love, at Waiweti, near Hutt. The Chairman : When was. the sale of the Love's property? Mr Myers : At the end of 1905 or the beginning of 1905. He was speaking from recollection. These were the two matters in regard to which he intended to caf evidence. The Chairman : Your charge is simply that Mr Macdonald received a commission for the sale of these properties. Mr Myers : Yes, but we go somewhat further. We say that these properties were sold at very high prices to the Government. The Hon. Mr Sinclair : Meaning thereby ?• Mr Myers : The point is this : Mr Hine's submission is that it is wrong for a member of either House to act as the agent for remuneration upon the sale of a property to the Crown. The Chairman : That is your charge ? Mr Myers : That is the inference. Dr Findlay said that counsel had stated that these sales took place at very high prices. Was it implied that these high prices were due to any collusion between the Government and the vendor or the agent? Mr Myers : We charge nothing against the Government. Dr Findlay : Or against any Government officer ? Is it said that there is no charge of impropriety against the Government. Mr Myers : In connection with these two charges, no, sir. The Chairman : Then was the price paid for Love's estate too high regarding the state of the mai-ket at the time ? Mr Myers : Not necessarily. What Mr Hine asks should be said is this : That it is not right for members to act as agents for remuneration upon sales to the Government. The Chairman : What you say is that it is wrong for a member of Parliament to act a.s agent in such a matter? Mr Myers : Yes, that if once that principle is admitted it may lead to a great deal of wrongdoing. Dr Findlay asked if he might suggest that if the inquiry was limited merely to the propriety of a member of Parliament acting as {he agent of a vendor to the Government in regard to purchases under the Land for Settlements Act, the facts might probably be wholly conceded, and then the inquiry would be limited to the question simply of ethics. Mr Myers : No, I don't think that all the facts will be admitted, but I don't want to say anything which will prejudice anybody. Mr Skerrett : Except Mr Macdonald. Mr Myers : I don't think that is fair, for I have said nothing. Mr' Skerrett : No, yon insinuated. Mr Myers : I have weighed every word in order not to create prejudice or seem to make-any unfair suggestion about anybody or any reflection on Mr Macdonald. I only answered the committee. Dr Findlay said that he only wanted to save time, if possible. A great deal of what Mr Hine attempted to establish would doubtless be conceded if no impropriety was charged against the Government or any officer. It would shorten time to find what was common ground between the parties. Mr Myers : I should probably have to call witnesses before we could shorten the proceedings, but I' will do my best to shorten them. The Hon. Mr Sinclair : Does Mr Myers wish to make any point about his allusion to high prices. Mr Myers : You are putting to me a very difficult question, and I don't want at the present stage to answer that question directly. Mr Sinclair : I thought you said something to the effect that there was no imputation of anything wrong ? Mr Myers : Any member of the Government or officer of the Government, I was asked. The Chairman : You used the expression, " Very high prices." You ought to explain whether the price was in your opinion higher than ought to have been paid under the circumstances —higher than the market mice. Mr Myers : If "I may make the suggestion I think it would be better to hear the evidence than press me for an answer. The Chairman : What we want is something that we can inquire into. Mr Myers : You are inviting me now to say with regard to one matter the very thing that I think I ought not at present state. The Chairman : Then we don't know at present what we are to inquire into. Mr Myers : I have already stated the two allegations that we make. The Chairman : Then these ar e the only two allegations'!' Mr Mvers : Yes. The lion. Mr Rigg suggested that the inquiry could not be complete unless the committee had before it the evidence of Mr Hine. He would further suggest that the scope of the inquiry should not be directed by counsal, but by the committee. Mr Hine could be invited by the committee to give evidence before it. If Mr Hine would take tho opportunity now the committee could, in a short time, find out what was meant by the

allegations. It might not be necessary to call further evidence. Mr Myers: I have- already said that Mr Hine's evidence would be inadvisable, as it -.vould be hearsay evidence. Dr Findlay: I apprehend that. Although Mr Myers does not think it necessary to call "Mr Hine, it would be free for Mr Skerrett or the committee to call him. Mr Myers: I apprehend that they would not desire to do so at this stage after what I have said. Mr Skerrett said that he regretted to hear that) Mr Myers did not intend to tender Mr Hine as a witness, so that the committee could hear the genesis of the charges and their exact nature." Mr Myers had to some extent cleared the air, but he had done so somewhat reluctantly, and although he spoke, as he said, weighing every word, he had spoken a little doubtfully. He was a little more inquisitive than Mr Myers. If Mr Myers did not call Mr Hine, he would call him. He wanted to know when the information came into his possession, how, and where, and in what way he considered it to be his public duty to bring_ up the matter. He bad listened attentively to what Mr Myers had said. At first h 8 had said that there was a tag to the charge that the property was sold at a very high price, but in answer to a question he had said explicitly and clearly that he did hot charge—in fact, he disavowed charging—any member of the Government or ofheer of the Land Purchase Department.in connection with the sale of any properties to ihe Crown. If that were correct, he would submit that it was puerile to set the committee up as one of land agents to determine the value of the properties at a particular time. He would suggest, that it would be unworthy of the dignity of the committee, and unworthy of the responsibilities piac2d upon it, to embark mpon an inquiry as to whether the bargain was a bad one on the part of the Government. With reference to the main charges, he did not propose to say anything at all in regard to the ethics of what Mr Hine and Mr Myers deposed. He did, however, want to point out that there appeared to be only one matter before the committee, and that was a matter of general application—whether a commission agent who happened to be a member of Parliament, or a lawyer who was the same, was excluded by that fact from any dealings with the Crown. That was the general question to be dealt with with the committee, and it certainly appeared to him to be a matter that could be disposed of in a very short time. Mr Myers: The circumstances will require consideration as to whether the general principle he was contending for was going to apply. Mr Skerrett: Oh, this discussion cannot go on. I am not opposing the adjourn-' ment. The Chairman at this stage stated that the committee had decided on the following mode of procedure: For Mr Myers, to open the case, examine his witnesses, Mr Skerrett to cress-examine them, and Mr Myers to re-examine. The committee would not require any addresses from counsel. Mr Myers: I was not proposing to open. Mr Skerrett: The committee is to be congratulated. Its. procedure will save much eloquence and the question of ethics. Mr Myers : You are sneaking for yourself. The Chairman rJso added that the witnesses would be sworn, and would receive expenses. The committee then adjourned till tomorrow evening at 8 o^clock.