ACTION FOR LIBEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3148, 15 July 1914, Page 7

ACTION FOR LIBEL.

FAIRBAIRN v. THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES, (From Oub Own Correspondent.) CHRISTCHURCH, July 8. In the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Sim and ’ a special jury, the case was called in which Andrew Fairbairn, merchant, of Christchurch, sued the Otago Daily Times and Witness Newspapers Company (Ltd.) for £IOOO damages for libel alleged to be published in the Otago Daily Times. • , There were four causes of action. The first was based on the publication in the Otago Daily Times, on October 15, 1912, of a leading article. In this it -was stated that, whether with or without the sanction of the witnesses concerned, the official record of the Cost of Living Commission, of whiqh the plaintiff was a member, was "misleading and erroneous in the respect that certain evidence in Christchurch on a particular point of interest had been completely suppressed. .The article said: This discovery lias been made by the chairman of the Merchants’ Association, who, by the quotation of the newspaper reports, clearly establishes his point that liberties have been taken With the evidence in the official record. One of the witnesses who were called in Christchurch to give evidence as to the iniquities practised by the Merchants’ Association declared in general terms that the public received none of the benefit of the remissions or reductions of duties on various lines of goods.' This was a very sate generalisation, but when it came to a matter of giving specific instances the witness, Mr Outhbert Bowyer, found himself on difficult ground. He committed himself, however, to the statement that, although the duty on blue had been reduced by 2d per fib, the price fell by one - penny only—from to the Merchants’ Association taking one-half of the reduction in the duty and the Grocers’ Association taking the other half. The witness was unfortunate in the illustration ho employed, since, as a matter of fact, the duty on blue was reduced by one penny- only, and the fact, as stated by him, that the price fell by a penny showed that the public received the full benefit of the reduction in the tariff. The mistake into which ho fell was pointed out in the evidence of Mr A. W. Jamieson, acting manager of the New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Association, who submitted to the commission a lengthy statement tiiat had been prepared by him. It did not, however, suit cither Mr Bowyer or some, members of the commission that his blunder in this respect should he exposed in the official report of the proceedings, because obviously the effect was to vitiate the generalisation in which he had indulged, tliat 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 blue. 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, and 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 were similarly 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 public immediately it secured control of them. According to their report, “ sworn statements of these witnescs, who are reputable men of some standing in the community, cannot be lightly brushed aside.” In the light of the fact that a portion of the swoon statement of one of these witnesses was struck out of the report of the evidence because it could not be substantiated, the passage we have quoted from the report of the commission reads somewhat queerly.

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

Tho 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 tho statement was made that if the Government was 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 this “ would not have suited tho Socialists and would not have given Mr Fairbairn a chance to ‘grind his axe.’ ”

The 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 the purchases were made through tho firm of Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co., was owned by the 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 tho Coat of Living Commission in Christchurch might bo able to understand why Mr Fairbairn publicly examined his own accountant, and they might feel inclined to think that Messrs Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. were ■working in the combined interests of themselves and the grocers, and not for the people generally, as Messrs' Fairbairn, Wright, and Co. would have the public to believe. The fourth cause of action was based on the publication in tho 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 common-sense elector could see that the whole Cost of Living Commission had been appointed “ for the purpose of enabling one of its members to attack his business' competitors and to further his own firm’s interests.”

The plaintiff alleged that the publication

in each instance was false and malicious and claimed £250 damages in respect ot each cause of action. Sir John Findlay, K. 0.. with hinx Mr Wright, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. C. MacGregor, with him Mr C. Stringer, for the defendant company, ine special jury consisted of Messrs C. tl. Gor ton (foreman), J. H. Kidd, H. Laurenson, R. Congreve, G. L. Donaldson, A. man, R. English, J. L, I. Danks, S. C. Todhunter, R. D. Harman, O. F. Turner, and.P. Watson, Sir John Findlay spoke for an hour and a-quarter in opening the case. After referring to 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 carry out to the best of its ability the confidence which the Governor had reposed in the members appointed. The gentlemen appointed were drawn from public callings, and from no particular political side. The question at once arose: How did Mr Fairbairn get on this commission? Mr Fairbairn never sought or suggested to anyone that he should be appointed. He did not use the least influence, and when he was asked by the then Prime Minister to take a seat on the commission he stated in reply tnat he would rather not. His reply was intended to be a courteous refusal. The Prime Minister, however, decided to have Mr Fairbairn on the commission, and the next tiling Mr Fairbairn knew was that his name had been gazetted as a member of the commission. Mr Fairbairn’s attitude to this commission was at first one of courteous refusal, but after his name had been gazetted ho conceived it to be his duty to the public and the country to accept the position. The members of a commission who accepted a place on the commission entered into an agreement that they would act honestly, honourably, and impartially, and would not use their position for the purpose of lining their own pockets or do anything discreditable, personal, or mean. They undertook to act up to the duties and expectations which the public had of these commissions. The obligations of honour lay just as largely and deeply upon them as such obligations lay on the members of the jury, and they could be violated by similar results as those which would follow the violation of the oath of the jury. The commission entered on its investigations early in June, 1912, and took evidence in Christchurch, Dunedin Wellington, and Auckland. A more thoroughgoing investigation could scarcely have been made. No member .of the' commission took evidence. There was an experienced official shorthand writer, who took the evidence down in shorthand, transcribed 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 in immaterial matters, such as errors in grammar or things which did not affect the sense of the evidence. The evidence was then signed as correct and returned to the clerk of the commission. In each case that was done, though in a few cases Miss Rout, the official reporter, took the evidence down direct on the typewriter. Even then it was sent to be revised and signed. The clerk of the commission was a trustworthy civil servant, and the evidence was taken charge of by him. What would the jury say,of a statement that the Royal Commission tampered with the evidence given by witnesses in order that the comnrssion might thereby justify a preconcerted, prejudiced, distorted, and dishonest finding? Either that it wo a gross or scandalous libed or that the person who 'made it had sifted it to the very bottom and had found it absolutely true, and in justice to the commission had made public the charge. Sir John proceeded to refer to the article which contained the reference to ‘‘faked official documents.” How did the word “faked” strike the jury? Official documents should be reliable, straightforward, and truthful. The writer of the article apparently knew that the evidence was submitted to the witnesses for their revision—a universal practice in royal commissions. He agreed with the writer when he said that the confidence of the community in royal commissions would bo shaken if the evidence was tampered with_ and suppressed, as was alleged by the article If the evidence had been deliberately suppressed nobody would pay one moment’s attention to the result of the laborious work of the commission. Gould anyone escape the charge made that 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 the evidence, but had modified and simplified it to suit their own preconceived conclusion. The article contained more serious charges than any leading article probably that the jurymen had ever road. 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 dishonest manner. The newspaper had been animated by a malice most unprecedented in the annals of journalism in this country. It was a disgraceto the newspaper that had published it, a disgrace to the man who wrote it, and a disgrace to the press of this country. The writer of the article had shown himself to be utterly unworthy of holding a pen that could be addressed to the public. Counsel said that the facts as far he knew were that the evidence given before the commission was never tampered with in any respect, altered, or faked by the commission. If the questions or answers were ungrammatical they were altered. This alteration had to ba made in order that the words would read sensibly. Mr Bowyers’s evidence was taken by Mr Berry, a highly qualified shorthand writer. That evidence appeared in the report in extenso and without one letter of alteration. &o far as the lines regarding blue which appeared in the newspaper wore concerned it would be shown that they were quite nonsensical. Mr Bowyer discovered that three halves did not make a whole. Mr MacGregor: It was Mr Yeitch who discovered that. . Sir John Findlay: Well, if it was Mr Yeitch, Mr Bowyer consented. Mr MacGregor: It was'.-known as Voitch s little joke. . ~ , , Sir John Findlay, continuing, said that Mr Jameson had prepared a written statement. Those portions of the statement which Mr Jameson had omitted in giving his evidence were struck out, as they must be. It was only that which Mr Jameson read that was his evidence. No evidence given by Bowyer. and none by Jameson was altered. Mr Jameson apparently made an afterthought. He had failed to say something which he afterwards thought he should have said, and so ho wont to the newspapers. The Christchurch Press dovetailed the statement in. The Press people were apparently very obliging, but the Lyttelton Times was not so courteous, and it would not play the little game. It put

it in aa a statement made by Mr Jameson. Mr Jameson had an additional statement, but because it contained a bitter attack on two grocers, to whom ho referred as price cutters, he shrunk from allowing it to go in. The evidence given by Mr Jameson and taken down by the official reporter was sent to him with a request that ho would revise it. Ho did so, and returned the evidence signed as correct. There was not a syllable thar was not complete. By signing it and sending it back he implied that it was correct and that it could bo printed in the official report. Counsel anticipated being able to show that Mr Jameson had not acted honourably 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 the purpose of furthering his own private ends in the discharge of his public duty as judge and investigator. An anonymous attack published on June 15, was a shabby one. It alleged that thoye were business relations between the then Prime Minister (the Hon. Thoe. Mackenzie) through a company known as the Import Company, and Fairbairn and Wright Company, and that that was why Mr Fairbairn was appointed a member of the commission. Mr 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 some 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 the firm 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 the 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 the accountant of Fairbairn, Wright and Co. by Mr Fairbairn. It be came necessary that certain documents in the office of Fairbairn, Wright and Coi should be handed to the commission. Mr Fairbairn then suggested that he should resign. It would bo proved that ho was under no obligation to resign. He was advised by Mr MacDonald, a legal member of the commission, that tho evidence was documentary, and that he could continue to sit. Ho was persuaded to remain on the commission. The witness was called, and five or six questions were asked. That was tho whole story of an incident over which such a fuss had been made. Coming to the last letter, counsel asked what was the meaning of the statement occurring in it “ enabling 'one of its members to attack his business competitors and further hie own firm’s interests.” If that were true of Mr Fairbairn he would deserve to be hounded out of Christchurch. Other articles from the newspaper would be quoted to show the malice against Mr Fairbairn. The attention of the defendants had been called to tho libel by way of. letter from Mr Stringer, who informed the company that a writ would bo issued. Tho defendants did not withdraw their charges, nor did they make any apology. They merely notified tho names of their solicitors, and stated that Mr Fairbairn had not been in the mind of the writer of the article. Now they came to court with an allegation of the truth of the statement. If they failed to prove the truth of them, then they were only aggravating the charges. The defendant paper said they made statements of fact, and also made certain comments which were fair and reasonable comments. He would 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 escape upon the ground that these statements of fact were comment. The jury would be 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 Merchant?,' Association in its methods was good, bad, or indifferent. What tho plaintiff was there for was to ask tho iury to decide whether the commissioners had tampered with, faked, suppressed. I altered certain testimony for the pun. .jo of justifying their preconceived views. Plaintiff was also there to have _ decided whether he sought to obtain a position upon the 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 had gone to tho court.

Ettie Annie 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 18, 1912. His evidence was closed before the luncheon adjournment. He read a statement, a copy of which had been given to her' before he started. She followed him as he read his own statement, and noticed that he did not read everything. When ho omitted anything she struck it out on her copy, which was the recognised practice in such an event. She reported Mr Jameson’s cross-examination, and when he had signed it and the statement and returned both she forwarded them to the commissioners in Auckland.

By Mr MacGregor : If 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 corner, and nobody cared if they heard or not. —(Laughter.) Mr MacGregor: If there was any evidence given about Reckitt’s blue? , Witness: It was not given. I am prepared to swear to that. To Sir John Findlay, witness 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 commercial instructions to publish the statement.

Dr James Hight, professor of history and economics at Canterbury College, said that ho was appointed to the commission on June 7, 1912. in place of Mr John Ross, of Ross and Glendining. He was present when Mr Jameson gave his evidence, and he had seen the statement as to Reckitt’s blue. Sir John Findlay; Have you any recollection of that statement being made before the commission?

Witness: None what ever. 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.

In connection with any witness s evidence? —No. You have road the article headed “Faked Documents”? —I have road it. Having read that article through, what innuendo do you say it supports? Mr MacGregor objected to tho question. And you read this article containing the reference to 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 Air Fairbairn? Could anyone who had followed the course of tho commission doubt the fact that Mr Fairbairn was attacking his business competitors ? —Yes. Do you doubt it? —It never occurred to mo 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 ‘ho had been concerned with charges made against the Alerchants’ 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 tho dominion that it was an indecent thing 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 Ross is a merchant in a large way of business? —I know his reputation. Did you know that Mr Ross resigned when he saw the composition of the commission? —No.

To Sir John Findlay, tho witness said he recollected a witness named Rowe being called, who was in the employ of Fairbairn A proposal was made to tho 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 be produced by this witness, and tho 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 Mr 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 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 wo 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: Yes; 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 my recollection goes the letter was not put in as evidence at the time, but after we got the legal advice. Mr MacGregor: Then the official record ij misleading in that respect? —Witness: There is a footnote. Mr MacGregor: But the evidence is mis•eacling in that direction. Is it not a fact that the witness handed in neither letter? — They were handed in to the commissioners. Mr MacGregor: These letoors appear as part of the sworn 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 commission. 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 rtatod that the Merchants’ Association is a combination of wholesale grocers who have banded together to bring pressure to bear to refuse 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: Y es, it is a charge made against them. You still say you did riot observe during the sitting of the commission that Mr Pairbairn made charges against his competitors, the Merchants’ Association? —I said he did not use his position to attack his trade competitors. Did not he abuse his position? Did it not strike you as singular that the only legal man upon the commission (Mr Macdonald) protested against the injustice of it? —No, it did not strike mo as singular. Is there not a* direct charge in a letter against] the Sugar Company?—Yes; the charge is there made. Did you not know that legal proceedings wore boinfr taken against the Sugar Company involving this very charge?—l knew proceedings were being taken against the Sugar Company, but did net know that was the particular charge. What did you think? —I knorr of it only generally. I was not acquainted ith the 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 the position of judges. Mr MacGregor: Excuse me, is that not quibbling? You made some very strong statements about the 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 as 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 the 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?—The witness was summoned by thn commission. How did the 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 he did not. Do you know he did not do so? —I have -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 of

one of the commissioners should be called to produce the letters of one of 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 John Findlay: Could you have fulfilled your duties in connection with the inquiry ” without the production of the evidence of Mr Rowe? —Witness: It was of material assistance to us. What was Mr Fairbairn’s attitude on the commission towards his trade rivals? I think that his attitude was that of a particularly conscientious man hi regard to them. John Ernest Thompson, residing at Balclutha, said tha't he was a member of the Import Company. There were four partners —the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie, David Mackenzie, G. H. Thompson, and witness. The' Hon. T. Mackenzie held one quarter share, but he 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 tentn 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 Raid that be and G. H. Thompson were nephews of the Hon. T. Mackenzie, and David Mackenzie was bis son.

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

get from Fair bairn, Wright, and Co. whatever they can supply, and what they cannot supply you get from outside? —Vvitness: That is not correct.

Mr MacGregor mentioned the name of Mr Howes, traveller for Hudson and Co., and formerly traveller for Neill and 00. 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 toll him that you would not do business with him because you dealt with Fairbairn, Wright, and Co?—No. Rattray and Co. are bigger merchants than Neill 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 toll you it was not all Mr Mackenzie’s. Mr MacGregor : J did not say it was his. His Honor advised witness to answer the question, and witness thereupon said that the Hon. Thomas Mackenzie .had provided about one-half of the capital. Sir John Findlay: You understand the 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 he 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 tfic 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 Bowycr’s evidence at all, but Mr Hill’s?—lt is not evidence; it is a question. The evidence was not altered in its effect.. The commissioners did not tamper in any way with the reply of the witness. In this case you will admit the evidence was altered after leaving the witness’s hands ? —Yes. Witness said that if blue was mentioned and not noted by the official reporter it was perhaps because the statement was nonsense. Ho believed that Mr Berry, who reported the evidence, gave the report as honestly and well as he could.

Mr MacGregor : I ask you to account for the fact that there is not one word of reference to Rockitt’s blue in the official report?—l prefer to believe the official record.

Mr MacGregor: You are like Miss Rout, thed? —Witness: I stfy he has done this to the best of his ability. Andrew Fairbairn, the plaintiff, said he was asked to join the commission by the 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 ho considered that it would bo cowardly to have refused to go on. No steps were taken to get him on the commission, and suggestions 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 say that ho himself

hod 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 where 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 he replied: “I accepted a seat upon that commission for no other purpose than to render a public service to the best of my ability.” Witness said, further, that he had never had a business transaction with the Hon. T. Mackenzie in his life. The relation between the Import Company and his firm was on the same basis as any other of their customers. He decided when the merchants throughout the dominion refused to give evidence that certain evidence he had ip his possession should be given in the public interest. He offered to retire from the commission, but its members decided that an employee could bo subpoenaed to give the necessary evidence. He was not conscious further of any action of his that could be thought an abuse of his position, on the commission. / By Mr MacGregor: In 1910 the firm of Fair bairn, Wright, and Co. consisted of himself, Mr Wright, Mr Maurice Louisson, and Mr Alfred Louisson. Recently Mr Wright had retired. Witness had had nothing 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 decidedly. Since when?—April 1, 1911. “ A good day to start,” commented Mr MacGregor. Witness further stated that when the Commercial Trusts Act came into operation he refused to join the Merchants’ Association, as it gave, ho 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 exchange with Sir John Findlay. “ I did nothing of the kind.” said Mr Fairbairn “My business suffered to a great extent, and acrimonious correspondence occurred with firms in Europe and elsewhere.” , When asked why he had been appointed, witness -said ho could not say. He was, however, known to three members of the Cabinet, and with two of them —Mr George Laurens on and, Mr Buxton —he bad had business transactions. "Absolute falsity.” said Mr Fairbairn to a suggestion by Mr MacGregor that the Hon. T. Mackenzie had guaranteed Mr Fairbairn on starting his business. He had known Mr Mackenzie personally only since vl9oo. . „ , . , “ Did you hear Bowyer mention Rcckitt s blue'” asked Mr MacGregor. “ I can’t say,” said witness. “ I don’t recollect.” Witness remembered the publication of a letter from Mr Godfrey (chairman of the Merchants’ Association in Christchurch) in October, 1911, in which Mr Godfrey drew attention to a statement made by a witness Hhat a remission of duty of 2d per lb had been made, which was incorrect, as only Id had been remitted. He also remembered the publication in September, 1911, of a letter from Mr Godfrey reflecting upon witness. Ho had taken legal advice about that letter, and more might yet be heard about it. “ Oh,” said Mr MacGregor, “ so you are just lying back waiting to bring actions against the Press and Lyttelton Times?” “ I didn’t say so.” said the witness. The cross-examination of the witness was. not concluded at 5.10 p.m., when the court rose. (Continued elsewhere.)