BREEZE IN THE HOUSE.

Waikato Times, Volume 106, Issue 17804, 31 August 1929, Page 7

BREEZE IN THE HOUSE.

MR SAMUEL’S ALLEGATION REPLY BY I¥5R ATMORE. “SIMPLY A PARTY TRICK.” WELLINGTON, Friday. Continuing his comments in the House this morning regarding Mr A. M. Samuel’s complaint the Minister of Education, Hon. H. Atmore, said:—“It will take more than the member for Thames to frighten me. This is simply a party trick. The only words I used were that I would tell them something about Egypt. Was that slandering him by associating his name with Egypt? If it is a slander to connect his name with Egypt he must know something that I don’t. The whole thing is farcical. When I connect his name with Egypt he says it is a slartder. Why?” After further comments by members, Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, thought it would be a pity If a general wrangle developed in the House. The matter resolved itself into whether the words were used as alleged, and, if. so, whether they constituted a breach, of privilege. On that point Mr Holland said he was prepared to be guided by Mr Speaker, and he asked for an indication of the course to be followed.

Mr Speaker explained that it was for the House to decide whether a breach of privilege had been committed except In prima facie cases. Personally, he was unable to tell the significance of the words. There were three courses open-. The matter could be decided by vote, it could be referred to a committee of privilege, or the debate could be adjourned until the •House had had time to think the matter over. “It looks to me as if there is not very much in this,” said the Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, who suggested to Mr Samuel that, having heard Mr Atmore’s explanation, he should drop the matter. Mr Samuel: He has aggravated it.

Sir Joseph Ward: This looks like making a mountain out of a molehill. If a reflection has been made it should be cleared up. If it is referred to a committee it will come to the same position in the end. Mr Samuel: It could be ventilated there.

Should Be Allowed To Drop.

Sir Joseph Ward: I don’t see any reason for ventilating it at the committee. I think the matter could rest as it stands.

Mr E. J. Howard (Labour member for Christchurch South) : Let the Minister withdraw any imputations. Sir Joseph Ward: The Minister says he made the remark in a jocular sense. What more can you want? I think the whole thing should be allowed to drop.

Mr Samuel: He said he would say It again. Let him say it outside. "I entirely dissent from the Prime Minister's reading of the incident,” said Mr P. Fraser (Labour member for Wellington Central). “While I accept the Minister’s assurance that he made the remark jocularly last night, he departed from that jocose manner this morning, and seemed to use something more sinister. I think that between now and Tuesday they should see whether they cannot adjust the matter. It would be unfortunate to adjourn the debate, thought Mr D. Jones (Reform member for Mid-Canter-bury). Mr Jones said he did not know what had passed on the previous evening, but it was certain Mr Atmore had that morning made insinuations, and carried the matter a great deal further. If Mr Atmore retracted and expressed regret the position would end.

“I was present when the remark was made last night,” said Mr Coates. ‘‘For the life of me I can’t say whether the Minister had any sinister meaning or not in his remark. It was unfortunate. All the member for Thames asks is a clear statement from the Minister that there was no sinister meaning. I think that is a fair thing to ask for. The member for ' Thames has a record of which any man might be proud. The .Minister ought to say that, as far as he knows, he can applaud Mr Samuel's military record. If he does that, that will be the end of It.

Mr Holland said he was personally satisfied that no imputation could be made against the military record of Mr Samuel. If the Minister, who did not deny using the words, and Mr Samuel came together, Mr Holland was sure the Minister would withdraw any imputation that might have been thought to have been implied.

Mr A. Harris (Reform member for Waitemata) thought that, as the matter would be given publicity, it should be settled at once without an adjournment. He pleaded with Mr Atmore to say he intended no imputation, and that he had merely spoken in a jocular mood, A Matter of Personal Honour. ‘‘l have no wish to oppose the amendment,” said Mr Samuel. “I am quite willing that this matter should stand over until Tuesday, as long ns we have the opportunity of thoroughly discussing it then. When the Minister spoke this morning and said his remarks were made in jocular fashion I would have accepted it had he remained there, but he has further aggravated the position, and I now look upon the matter as one of personal honour. It is lowering the dignity of this House for him to call it party trickery, and to say that he is not going to be frightened by me. I might retort in the same way. This iis a matter of personal honour, and t want my honour vindicated. If any charge Is to be made against me I welcome the fullest inquiry. The attitude of the Minister this morning very conclusively proves that in his opinion there is something to hide as far as my military career is concerned. “If you adjourn for six months I ■oannot say more than I have said this morning,” said Mr Atmore. "I object to Mr Samuel’s statement about the war. My name was sent in in 191 D, and I have nothing to regret in regard to my conduct. I object to Mr Samuel posing as an injured innocent. I can add nothing to what I have said. If Mr Samuel cannot take a Jocular remark he should not give them." The Minister proceeded lo ask whether any significance would have ibeen attached to his remark if, instead of Egypt, he had mentioned Germany, j Auckland, or Rotorua. "Why Egypt if It did not " Mr Fraser sprang to his feet, and loudly submitted that the Minister was entirely out of order. “This House should be protected from sucli stupid i trifling.” he added. ; Mr Speaker said he had allowed considerable latitude in view of the conciliatory speeches that had been made, but he must now keep members

strictly within the limits of the motion for the adjournment. Mr Atmore: I thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. (Scornful Reform laughter,) Mr Howard said he found himself not in accord with his party on the matter. He thought the question should go before, a select committee. The motion to adjourn the debate until Tuesday was carried.