43

H.—26

317. Or over-ruling it?—l neither interfered, nor did I over-rule. It is just possible that in the absence of Mr. Hall-Jones I might have received a deputation, or he might have been here when the deputation came to me. I assure you that I have no recollection of speaking to Mr. Hall-Jones on the matter; and when I received that telegram of what appeared in the Press, he sent that voluntarily to me, and it bore out my statement that I had not spoken to him about it. 318. I understood you before to say that Mr. Hall-Jones knew all about the matter?—lt does not follow that I had spoken to him. 319. Then you spoke to Mr. Glasgow about it ? —Yes. 320. And you spoke to Captain Allman ?—lt was a long way back, and I think Mr. Glasgow will bear that out. It was early in the application that I spoke to Mr. Glasgow about it, and it was a result of that conversation that the thing was checked. And it was at my suggestion that the matter was put on record to show the grounds upon which the department disputed it. They had checked it before, and lam satisfied were correct when Mr. Glasgow sent his first letter, but there was nothing on the file. 321. But the one man that you had not spoken to on the matter was Mr. Hall-Jones?— If you asked if I had spoken to Mr. Ward about it—and" he was the Minister of Marine up to June—l should say, Yes. 322. Mr. Hall-Jones was Minister nine months before you left. During that nine months you were interviewed by ladies and gentlemen, friends of Captain Jones, and you gave ?—You have made a long statement, and I do not admit what you have said. 323. What part do you object to ? —I said, possibly I was interviewed. 324. You said you had been told, previously to going to Auckland, that a deputation had interviewed Mr. Hall-Jones?—l did not say a deputation had seen Mr. Hall-Jones. 325. You were informed ?—I said nothing of the kind. 326. What did you say ?—I said I knew that Mr. Hall-Jones had been dealing with the matter, and had been seen. 327. During the whole of the nine months during which the thing was being dealt with, before you went Home, you never spoke to Mr. Hall-Jones on the subject ? —No; I have no recollection of it. He bears that out. He was the first to communicate that to me. I tell the Commissioners that the matter was so trivial—that it was an application of a man who wanted to get employment, that the application was sent in, that it was barred, and the whole thing never bothered me at all. 328. Do you wish to convey to the Commission that, taking your own statement, even as corrected by you to-day, and the telegram sent by Mr. Hall-Jones, that was not a virtual suppression of the fact that a telegram had been sent by you at Auckland to Mr. Hall-Jones ?— Certainly it was not. 329. Do you think it was candid ? —I could say nothing else. 330. Do you think it is a candid expression of fact?— Decidedly. 331. That, knowing a telegram had been sent, you were justified in saying there had been no conversation about Captain Jones, his certificate, or anything concerning him, until after Mr. Hutcheson's speech, and also that the first you knew of Captain Jones's examination was after Mr. Hutcheson's speech; do you think that is a candid statement ?—I repeat that what you have quoted is incorrect. There has never been a word said or an attack made on the Government about his service certificate. The only thing said was in respect to the examination. With regard to the examination I never spoke to Mr. Hall-Jones, nor he to me, up to the time I gave that statement to the Press. 332. Mr. Hall-Jones goes very much beyond that. Do you not recognise that ?—He was dealing with the question of the examination, and if a colleague were communicating with another colleague on any subject he would confine himself to the one thing. That is the question of the service certificate, which was suppressed by the Press. 333. Was not this communication which you made to the Press, and this telegram which was sent by Mr. Hall-Jones, done in pursuance of a statement which you made that you would telegraph to Mr. Hall-Jones for an explanation of his and your own connection with the matter?—l have got the Press notes here. The grand jury made an attack on the Government by bringing in their presentment on a prosecution —a most unprecedented course, because it was ex parte on the papers before them. They said that Ministers should not interfere with officers in the execution of their duty. Well, it was pretty rough, seeing that there had been no interference. I was speaking at Kaitangata at the time, and it was in reference to something I said which was sent to Wellington. A correspondent in Wellington sent the matter down South, and that gentleman has an imagination equal to that of Tom Pepper. It was owing to something being sent down from Wellington that I had to put the matter right with the Press. If you give a matter like that forty-eight hours' start, it grows, and people whose minds are sponge-like will absorb anything. If the telegram had been sent to me before being sent, I would have checked it, and altered the word about not knowing Captain Jones. 334. Was not this statement made intended to correct the communication from this gentleman you refer to : " With reference to the Premier's denial of my statements of yesterday, which were wired through the colony to-day, I repeat deliberately that the Premier wrote to the Hon. HallJones on the day that he (Mr. Seddon) left for England, asking him to do what he could for Captain Jones." Was it not in order to give denial to that statement that you got Mr. Hall-Jones to send the telegram ?—No. The general charge was that the Government were parties to the fraudulent examination. That is what you are trying to make out to-day. You are trying to fasten on the Government that my colleague has been a party to a fraudulent examination. 335. Is not that the one and specific statement to which you refer ? Was it not to correct that statement that the letter was sent to Mr. Hall-Jones and you put in this other communication