P. J. NOLAN J

9

I.—B.

101. I am not speaking of the Bill now ; I am speaking of the article? —Yes, I saw the third article before it was published. 102. In the office of the newspaper?— Yes. 103. Do you know who wrote it ?—Yes. 104. Would you mind stating the name of the writer? —I would prefer not to state. Without the permission of my editor I could not state that. 105. You decline to give the name of the writer? —Yes. My reason for acting in this way is that in matters of this kind we are pledged to secrecy, unless by the permission of the editor. 106. Do you remember which of your reporters was on duty in the Press Gallery of the House of Eepresentatives on Friday, the 4th of this month ?—I cannot remember. I know I was not on duty. I believe Mr. Schwabe was on duty—in fact, I know he was, because he took my place. 107. On the 4th?—On the 4th ; but I cannot say whether the other reporter who was assisting him was Mr. Barr or Mr. Browne. 108. Do you think there were two? —I know there were two reporters. 109. Mr. Schwabe was one ?—Yes. I think—in fact, I am almost certain —that Mr. Barr was the other. 110. Had you, prior to that, seen a copy of this Bill ?—No. Emil Schwabe, Eeporter on the Staff of the New Zealand Times, examined on oath. (No. 4.) 111. The Chairman.] Have you seen the articles in the Netu Zealand Times of Saturday the sth September, and Monday the 7th September, in connection with education ? —Yes. 112. Were you the reporter for the New Zealand Times in the Press Gallery on the Thursday or Friday ?—I was one of them. 113. Have you seen the proposed new State-school syllabus? —I neither admit or deny that. 114. I ask the question, Have you seen the new State-school syllabus ? —I decline to answer that question. 115. Have you seen the proposed new regulations in regard to training-colleges for teachers? —I decline to answer that question also. 116. Have you seen the proposed new Education Bill?— That question also I decline to answer. 117. Were you the reporter who afforded the information to the editor of the New Zealand Times upon which the articles on education appearing in the Times of the sth and 7th September were based ? —I was one of the staff. 118. We have the evidence of Mr. Kelly, the editor, that the report was handed to him in writing : was that your report ?—I was one of two reporters in the gallery that night. Mr. Barr was there too. 119. Did Mr. Kelly receive a report in writing from you containing the information regarding education which was published in the New Zealand Times of Saturday the sth and Monday the 7th September ?—I regret that I cannot answer that question. It would imply a breach of a trust which to me is as sacred as any trust imposed upon the members of this Committee. I say that with all due deference. 120. As a parliamentary reporter, you are aware of the existence of a Standing Order which prohibits the publication of any matter which is before a Committee ? —I am aware of it. 121. Were you aware at the time of the publication of those articles that a Select Committee had been set up, and was dealing with the matters which were published in your paper?— Yes. 122. So, notwithstanding your knowledge of this Standing Order regarding breach of privilege, you, as one of the reporters of the New Zealand Times, gave this information to the editor of your paper? —I was-not aware that the information was confidential. 123. As a Press reporter, would you use a document for publication which was marked " Confidential draft " ?—I would not. 124. Have you ever seen this document before, or a copy of it [document handed to witness] ? —No. 125. Have you ever seen a similar copy to this [copy of Bill produced] ?—No. 126. Have you ever seen a similar copy to this [document produced] ? —No, I have not. I have neither seen those nor copies of them. 127. Would you, if you knew that a document was marked " Confidential," as these are, make use of it?— Not if it was marked " Confidential " and was before a Select Committee of the House. I have respect for the Standing Orders. 128. Do you decline to state whether it was your report that was dealt with by Mr. Kelly, or was used as the basis upon which his article that I have here was written ? —Yes ; it would be a breach of trust. 129. Bight Hon. B. J. Seddon.] You say that Mr. Barr was in the gallery ?—Yes. 130. Did Mr. Barr show you any documents in reference to this matter?—l regret that I cannot answer that question. 131. Did you, prior to the publication of the information in the New Zealand Times, see in any one's possession the subject-matter which was dealt with ?—I regret that that question comes within the same category as the previous one. 132. You saw what was published in the Times about the Secondary Education Bill, the training-colleges for teachers, and the new syllabus ? —Yes. 133. Had you, before you saw that in the Times, seen it either in manuscript or in print?— I regret that I must decline to answer that question. 134. The documents have been shown you, and you have been asked if you have ever seen a similar copy ?—Yes. 135. Take this document. [Document handed to witness.] What is the heading of it ?— " Regulations for the Inspection and Examination of Schools."