KEEN ARGUMENT IN HOUSE

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1929, Page 15

KEEN ARGUMENT IN HOUSE

WAS IT JOKE OR INSINUATON?

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE CLAIMED. MR. SAMUEL AND HON. H. ATMORE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Aug. 30. When the House of Representatives met this morning Mr. A. M. Samuel immediately stated that he wished to move a breach of privilege. He said he had been slandered by the Hon. H. Atmore, who had stated in the lobby, after tile sitting of the House last night, and in response to a jocular remark that “He would tell the people something about me in Egypt.” This, Mr. Samuel contended, was a direct reflection on his military career, and could not be taken as otherwise. His medical and military history were open for the world to see. He maintained that if members were to be open to insinuation and slander in the lobbies of the House, Parliament would soon become a place unfit to live in. He had not only himself to consider. He was a married man with a family, and for that reason he would not permit the reflection on his character to stand. Mr. Samuel added that had the statement been made outside the House he would have had an opportunity of dealing with it in a different manner. He moved that a breach of privilege had been committed.

Mr. Atmore said he had been rather surprised and considerably amused that Mr. Samuel who, in his speech last night, had dared to accuse him (Mr. Atmore) of literary piracy, should have brought up such a point. Referring to the incident, Mr. Atmore said Mr. Samuel had been standing in the lobby with Mr. Coates. He (Mr. Atmore) had said as he passed: “Hello Samuel!” the latter replying, “Don’t be too hard on me when you reply.” The Minister said he remarked: “I shall tell you something about Egypt.” “Why,” he asked, “should Mr. Samuel consider he had been slandered? I simply connected the name of Samuel with Egypt, and I said it' in a chaffing sense.” Mr. Samuel: “Chaffing sense not at all.” “NOTHING TO WITHDRAW.” Mr. Atmore stated that if Mr. Samuel could not take a chaffing retort, he should not place himself in the position to get one. The Minister added that he had nothing to withdraw. He was prepared to repeat the remark chaffiingly: “If he knows something that happened there that he is not proud of, I don’t,” Mr. Atmore said. “More insinuation, Mr. Speaker,” interjected Mr. Samuel.

Mr. H. E. Holland suggested that the Speaker should give the House an indication whether he considered a breach had been committed.

Mr. Speaker; “The Speaker does not decide whether a breach hag been committed; that is for the House to decide.” There were three courses open to the House: (1) To vote on the subject; (2) to refer it to the Committee of Privilege; (3) to adjourn the debate to give members an opportunity to talk the position over. He added that the Speaker had no jurisdiction over what took place in the lobby. Sir Joseph Ward suggested that Mr. Samuel, having heard the explanation of the Minister of Education, should drop the subject.

Mr. Samuel: “He has aggravated it.”

Sir Joseph Ward stated that Mr. Atmore had given an assurance that he had' not meant anything sinister. It appeared that Mr. Samuel was making a mountain out of a molehill.

Mr. Samuel: “It is a personal matter. I see every reason for pursuing it.” Mr. Howard: “Let the Minister withdraw any imputation.” Sir Joseph Ward: “The Minister of Education ha ssaid he spoke in a jocular sense. What more can you want?”

Mr. P. Fraser said he considered that matters of privilege should not be brought up lightly. Most members had at some time or other used words in the heat of the moment that they had repented afterwards, and so far as that was concerned he was not- inclined to take a serious view, but, on the other hand, once a matter of breach of privilege had been brought before the House it should be treated seriously. Mr. Atmore had departed from the jocular manner this morning, Mr. Fraser continued, and had seemed to put something further and more sinist into the words. He suggested the debate should be adjourned to enable the parties concerned to adjust matters, remove any misunderstanding, and inform the House.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason moved the adjournment of the debate.

“THE MATTER AGGRAVATED.”

Mr. D. Jones suggested that the matter had been aggravated by Mr. Atmore’s attitude that' morning. He suggested the Minister should retract the whole position and express regret for any insinuations that might have been taken from the remarks. United voices; “No.”

Mr. Coates stated that he was present when the remark was made in the lobby, and whether the meaning had been sinister or not, it was an unfortunate remark. All Mr. Samuel wanted was a clear statement that there was no sinister.-meaning. Mr. Coates suggested that Mr. Atmore should state that, as far as he knew (and all members knew it was so) Mr. Samuel's record in Egypt was one of which he might be proud.

Mr, F. Waite stated that he had been shown letters to Mr. Samuel which the member for Thames might have felt had been connected with the remark on the subject of Egypt. He did not suggest that Mr. Atmore was connected with the letters. Mr. H. E. Holland said he thought if the motion to adjourn the debate was carried, the Minister would agree to withdraw any imputation that might be thought to have been contained in the words. After further debate, Mr. Samuel said he would have been satisfied with Mr. Atmore’s statement that the remark had been a jocular one,, but the Minister had then gone further and aggravated the position. He observed that Mr.- Atmore was backed by the United back benches, some of whom, like Mr. Atmore himself, had not gone to the war.

Mr. Atmore stated that if the debate were adjourned for six months he could not do more than he had .done that morning. He added that Mr. Sam-

nocent to enable himself to make a reflection on him (Mr. Atmore). In regard to the war, the Minister remarked that an investigation would show that his name had been sent in in 1915. The debate was then adjourned.