COMMENT IN HOUSE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20454, 6 November 1934, Page 8

COMMENT IN HOUSE.

Mr M’Arthur Complains to Mr Coates. "SCARCELY CREDIBLE.” Per Press Association. WELLINGTON. This Dav. The following cabled correspondence between Mr J. W. S. M’Arthur and the Rt Hon J. G. f'oates has been handed j to the United Press Association bv Mr M’Arthur:— Sydney, October 16—To the Rt lion J. G. Coates: “My attention has been drawn this morning to the ‘ New Zealand Ilerald of October 10 just to hand reporting your statement in the House as follows: 1 Reports of the proceedings of the Royal Commission in Sydney indicate that the proposals for reconstruction have been submitted to the Commission. The Commissioner’s remarks in relation thereto as recorded on September 26 are as follows: " I certainly shall want during the addresses to hear something from counsel on the methods which are proposed to be adopted to carry on these companies, and what is proposed to be done as a basis for my report. I do not know whether Dr Louat was testmg my sense of humour when he handed in that scheme of reconstruction that Mr M Arthur had prepared, or whether he really thought it was a scheme of reconstruction.’ Your statement that the Commissioner’s remarks related to reconstruction proposals is entirely incorrect. The document referred to by him was old and unimportant, having no reference to re-organisation proposals, which were not made until October 2, six days later. If you had quoted three lines more, this would have been clear, but quotation is torn from its context. You then refer to criticism of the proposals by counsel acting for the Crown, inferring that this was on September 26, the date when the Commissioner’s remark was made. Actually it was eight days later. It seems scarcely credible that facts as here set out were not available to you. If the extraordinary course is to be taken of commenting officially on the progress of judicial inquiry, I would ask that care be observed to avoid statements as unrelated to the truth as they are damaging to debenture holders’ interests. Will you also in fairness take first opportunity to correct mis-statements to which your attention is now drawn (Sgd.) J. W. S. M’Arthur.” Mr Coates’s Reply. Wellington, October IS.—To J. W. S. M’Arthur, Sydney.—“ With reference to your cable of October 16, the statement referred to was made by me in answer to a question asked in the House. My quotation of Commissioner’s remarks reproduced verbatim from printed evidence statement numbered 15,891, where Commissioner refers to proposal as a scheme of reconstruction prepared by you. Dr Louat certainly claimed it was a skeleton put forward as showing that matter of re-organisa-tion had not escaped attention. My references to the remarks of counsel assisting Commission admittedly refer not to the skeleton but to the more detailed scheme submitted by you on October 2. I gather that you consider the interests of debenture holders damaged by the fact that juxtaposition in my reply apparently attributes to the skeleton scheme subsequent comment on the detailed scheme. I had no intention of giving that impression, but suggest that you authorise me to hand to the Press for publication and information of debenture holders copies of printed evidence questions 18,891 to 18,895 relating to the skeleton scheme and the whole of the proceedings of the thirtieth sitting on October 4, giving references to detailed scheme with comments of Commissioner and counsel on both sides, together with a copy of your cable and this reply. Please cable whether you wish this done. I do not consider my statement in the House damaging to debenture holders, but if you consider it was damaging, the publication suggested would make the position clear. (Sgd.) J. G. Coates.^ Sydney, October 18—To the Rt Hon J. G. Coates. “ Your cabled reply admits that the Commissioner’s remark had nothing to do with the reconstruction proposals although you had definitely stated it to be in relation to those proposals. It also admits that the address of counsel assisting the Commissioner was delivered eight days afterwards, and on another subject, although your statement had directly inferred the contrary. As to your suggestion that I should authorise you to hand certain portions of the printed evidence to the Press, you need no authorisation from me to act as you please. It is certain, however, that the false impression already given by improper comment will only be intensified by any further picking out of portions of the evidence. Action of this kind by a Minister of the Crown during the course of a judicial inquiry is, I am advised, without British precedent. I am content with full publication of your cable and this reply. (Sgd.) J. W. S. M‘Arthur.” Wellington, October 19—To J. W. S. M’Arthur, Sydney. “ Firstly, my cabled reply does not admit that the Commissioner’s remark had nothing to do with the reconstruction proposals. On the contrary, my cabled reply affirms, and I now reaffirm, that in using the phrase ‘ That escheme of reconstruction that Mr M’Arthur had prepared ’ I correctly quoted the exact words of the Commissioner on the twenty-sixth September, as recorded paragraph 18,891. Furthermore I refer you to paragraphs 10,338 to 16.346 where, on September 21, exhibit 4S was described officially as a document prepared by you outlining reconstruction of companies, and by Dr Louat as an outline, a skeleton of the organisation. Your evidence on September 21 was that your plans were for a reorganisation of the whole system, that exhibit 48 was the outlined scheme you had prepared for the purpose, that you commenced on it early this year and worked it out as opportunity occurred as you had the time to do so. That was the ‘ scheme of reconstruction ’ that the Commissioner referred to on September 26. Secondly, my suggestion as to publication was that, as you feared interests of debenture-holders might suffer by a quoted comment by counsel on detailed scheme being related to the skeleton scheme, you should acquiesce in publication of the whole of the reported proceedings of October 4 when the complete scheme, was discussed by counsel for all parties and by the Commissioner. (Sgd.) J. G. Coates.” Complaint Repeated. Sydney, October 20—To Rt Hon J. G. Coates. “ Your second cable of October

19 adds nothing to the first. Y’ou insist that you quoted the mmissioner correctly, and this has never been disputed. I say that you wrongly represented him as referring to the reconstruction proposals now before the Commission, wheras in fact he was speaking of a document which purported only to be an outline of a new office system. This misrepresentation you do not even now deny. You suggest that I should acquiesce in the publication of the whole of the proceedings of October 4, but this would not direct public attention to the errors in your Parliamentary statement. So far as my asquiescence or otherwise has weight with you, I am not prepared to have portions of evidence selected for publication by anyone. Your reply is silent as to the impropriety of such a course being taken by a Minister of the Crown whether in Parliament or out of it during progress of a judicial inquiry. (Sgd.) J. W. S. M’Arthur.” Wellington, October 23—To J. W. S. M’Arthur, Sydney. “ Your cable of October 20 received, but this adds nothing to your last message. As regards alleged impropriety, which is not admitted, I am content to leave matter to judgment of public of this country. (Sgd.) J. G. Coates.” Sydney, October 24—To the Rt Hon J. G. Coates. “ Your telegram of October 23 does not dispose of the fact that impropriety of your conduct as Minister of the Crown in commenting on proceedings during the course of a judicial inquiry has conveyed a false impression, nor does your failure to admit such impropriety justify it. Since you choose to leave the matter to the judgment of the New Zealand public I am more than content to await the people’s decision asking only that facts relating to your attack upon me, its origin, method and purpose, should be fairly put before them. On what has so far happened I fear I am asking too much. (Sgd.) J. W. S. M’Arthur.”