1.—7

18

Mr. Fraser: Until we decide that it is a breach of privilege we cannot ask who did it. Mr. Seed: But we must get evidence. If somebody has made this remark to Mr. Massey we want to know who, as we want to know who wrote the letetr, in order to ascertain by whom the breach of privilege has been committed. The verbal statement stands in the same position as the written statement. If Mr. Massey can supply us with the names, then we can report to the House by whom we find a breach of privilege has ben committed. Therefore I think it is necessary, in order to carry out the instructions of the House, that we should put the question to Mr. Massey, By whom were the statements made in Auckland? Mr. M. Myers: Does not the answer to the question, " Who committed a breach of privilege?" depend entirely on what happened in the House? It is the repetition of the statement in the House that is the breach of privilege. , The Chairman: No; it is necessary, in order to determine clearly whether a breach of privilege has been committed, to have some evidence bearing on the points mentioned by Mr. Reed. Hence the reason for desiring to put the question. Mr. Bussell: lam inclined to differ from Mr. Reed in connection with this matter. The order of reference from the House in this : " That the following words used in debate in the House ... be referred to the Committee." I submit that the Committee cannot go beyond the words "in the House." The mere making of a statement that was false or slanderous by some one outside the House would not constitute a breach of the privileges of the House, otherwise the country would be in such a state of ferment that we might require, after a general election, to have half the entire population brought up. What might constitute a breach of privilege would be the repetition in the House of a slanderous statement made by somebody outside. The Chairman: In discussing the question this morning it appeared to us that, in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a breach of privilege had been committed, we should as far as possible obtain the information mentioned by Mr. Reed. It will certainly help us to detei'mine the question. I think Mr. Lee will bear me out in that. Mr. M. Myers: I submit that this tribunal should not be used as a means for enabling one person to bring an action for slander against another. The Chairman: It is not for that object. Mr. M. Myers: I submit that that is the effect, and I submit with great respect that the view taken by Mr. Russell is the correct one. That is the view that I had already put, in a slightly different way, before Mi 1 . Russell rose; and I submit that the Committee should pause before asking a question of this kind. I submit that it does not' come within the order of reference, and that it is not a proper question to put. The Chairman: I will allow Mr. Reed to put the question. Mr. Fraser: I rise to a point of order. This is a matter which the Committee ought to settle for itself; therefore, before the question is put, I move that the Committee deliberate upon it. For the Committee to go deliberately beyond its own order of reference is not likely to conduce to a proper consideration for the Committee. Mr. Reed: Ido not want to ask an improper question. You have stated, Mr. Chairman, what took place this morning, and I should like to hear Mr. Lee upon the matter. The question I desire to put is entirely in furtherance of the directions that we received this morning. It seems to me that this case is on all-fours with the other where a written letter is concerned. T cannot see the difference between a verbal statement and a written one. Mr. Lee: I would rather express myself when we are deliberating. The Committee deliberated in camera. The Chairman: Mr. Massey, it is not the intention of Mr. Reed to ask you that question. Do you wish to say anything further, or your counsel make any statement, or put anything in? Mr. M. Myers: I gave my answer to that question at the beginning. The Committee overrules the question, I understand? The Chairman: Mr. Reed has withdrawn ft: he decides not to put it. Mr. M. Myers: With regard to the other charge—No. I—that goes on to-morrow morning, I understand, at 10.30? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. M. Myers: And No. 3? Mr. Fraser: As soon as the other is finished to-morrow. Wednesday, 28th February, 1912. The Chairman: We are now going to deal with Order of Reference No. 1. You may make a short opening statement if you like, Mr. Myers, but there are to be no addresses by counsel. Mr. M. Myers: Ido not feel it necessary to make an opening statement. The Committee will no doubt, at a later stage, if and when certain questions are put which may be objected to, give me an opportunity of explaining the reasons why the questions are objected to. Mr. Skerfett: May I point out that in this matter Mr. Massey stands in the light of a prosecutor. It is for him to call his evidence and for us to rebut it if necessary. Of course, it is clearly open fo Mr. Massey to admit that there is not a word of truth in the charge, and then T proceed. Mr. M. Myers: Mr. Massey has nothing to add, as far as he is concerned, to what he stated to the House on Monday night. Mr. Fraser: I understand from Mr. Skerrett that Mr. Massey is in the light of a prosecutor. I do not quite see that he is in that position before this Committee, because the House has declared that what he read out is a breach of privilege. It appears to me, therefore, he is in the light of a defendant, not a prosecutor.