1.-7

writing of the letter, so that we at the present time, so far as the breach of privilege is concerned, have nothing to do with the authority of the law. It is only Mr. Massey's action that is in question. The House has ordered us to inquire into the writing and publishing not only of the extract, but of the letter, and we have nothing, therefore, to do in carrying out the mandate of the House with any ulterior action. 1 want to ask Mr. Myers how he meets that position —in what way he identifies the duties and responsibilities (if this Committee with any action that Mr. Payne may take afterwards. Mr. Myers wants to block this Committee by saying that Mr. Payne may do something else. Mr, M. Myers: Ido not want to block the Committee, but 1 say first that it would be impossible for Mr. Massey to produce the letter, and, secondly, that the Committee ought not to ask for its production. The Committee can make its inquiry into the writing and publishing of the letter. The Chairman: You say the Committee " ought not to." Do you submit that the Committee has no right to 2 Can you show us any authority? Mr. M. Myers: Only on this ground : I submit that a Court would only order the production upon an undertaking. This Committee cannot order the production upon an undertaking, because the parties are not necessarily before the Committee, and because those who are here would not be bound by an undertaking, and other parties are not bound. Mr, Russell: My point is that we have nothing to do with the points Mr. Myers is raising. Mr. M. Myers: 1 submit the Committee should not do so because it is not bound to have the letter before it in order to carry on its duties. The Chairman: Surely if we have to inquire into the writing and publishing of the letter we want to know who the writer is. Mr. M. Myers: I have submitted the position as far as 1 can. The Chairman: Do you submit that this Committee cannot exercise its functions by reason of the delegation from the House? Mr. M. Myers: Do you ask in connection with enforcing an undertaking? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. M. Myers: 1 submit the Committee cannot. If Parliament, by appropriate resolution or legislation, were to indemnify any persons who gave evidence or whose names were mentioned, or if Parliament did the same thing in another way by imposing an undertaking Mr. Skerrett: Could Parliament enforce that undertaking? Mr. M. Myers: Possibly, so far as a member of Parliament is concerned. But my point is that there are other persons involved who are not before this Committee at all. Mr. Skerrett: There are none. Mr. M. Myers: Yes there are. You will find a gentleman named in this extract, and 's father, in addition to the writer of the letter. Mr. Skerrett: He is the author of the slander. The Chairman: Suppose application were made for discovery in the- Supreme Court, you as counsel could oppose? Mr. M. Myers: If Mr. Massey were defendant? The Chairman: Yes. Mr. M. Myers: Yes. The Chairman: Can you show me any authorities for that? Mr. M. Myers: Only the authorities 1 have referred to. The Chairman: They would not apply. Mr. M. Myers: They would, because other people besides Mr. Massey have a joint interest in the matter. The Chairman: Can you show any authority in an action for the production of a letter where the Court would refuse discovery? Mr. M. Myers: You can lind any quantity. There are cases cited in Stout and Sim's Practice. The Chairman: I would like to see them. Air. Russell: Have we not had cases where men have been called upon to produce letters? There was a man who was sent to prison—the editor of a paper, 1 think —because he refused to produce a letter. May I ask what the exact position is now? The Chairman: The question has been put to Mr. Myers asking him if Mr. Massey will produce the letter. Mr. Massey, through his counsel, has refused to do so. The question arises whether we are in a position to compel Mr. Massey to produce the letter. Mr. Myers has contended that we have no right or authority to compel Mr. Massey to produce the letter. Apart from the question of public policy, Mr. Myers says we cannot or ought not to compel its production. Mr. M. Myers: " Ought not." I do not dispute that a Committee of Parliament has very wide powers, and 1 am not prepared to say that the decisions which apply to Courts necessarily apply to this Committee. For instance, a Court may not have power to make an order which a Committee of Parliament might have power to make. The Chairman: But you have asked us to be governed. Mr. M. Myers: Yes. I say that if the production of the document of this kind were asked for in Court the Court would not order it to be produced. The Chairman: Have you got the authority before you 1 Mr. M. Myers: There is another reason. A Court will not order a document to be produced which might tend to incriminate. Mr. Skerrett: Tend to incriminate whom? Mr. M. Myers: Incriminate the defendant. The Chairman: Is there a defendant here ? Mr. M. Myers: No, but Mr. Massey may be liable for what he has said. Supposing he had read outside the House simply the extract which he had copied from the letter? Mr. Skerrett: My friend knows that that would be slander.

22