HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 30, 30 October 1907, Page 8

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

MR. CASQUOINE'S EXPLANATION. . "When the House met yesterday afternoon tho Speaker read a letter from Mr. "W. 0. Gasquoine, manager of the State Coal Department, containing 'an .explanation, in'regard to tho alleged breach of privilege reported by Mi'. Gray last week on behalf of the A to L'Petitions Committee. . Mr. Gastjuoino said that when ho was asked in committee regarding a report that Westport coal was more valuable than State coal he felt bound to ascertain whether any .such report had been made and telegraphed to tho Christchurch depot, stating what Mr. Gray had said, and asking the dopot officer to'make! enquiries. Unfortunately tho tramway electrical engineer was out and the depot officer had left the. telegram for him to see. For this he • (Mr. Gasquoine) could not ho hold responsible. Ho further recalled that he had previously been requested by the Committee to ascertain certain facts from the Wangamii depot and lie submitted that the two cases were sufficiently similar to justify,his action.

Tlio Premier asked the Speaker to rule whether a breach of privilege had been committed. Mo Breach of Privilege.. The Speaker ruled that Mr. Gasquoine had divulged no evidence given before the committee, nor had lie told anything in reference to documents before tho committee. Therefore there was no breach of privilege. Mr. Gray, as the one primarily concerned in this matter, said bo was perfectly satisfied with the explanation, lie had been led to understand after communication with older members that a breach of privilege had been committed. Mr. Massey, thought it was' for tho House to say .whether a breach of privilege bad been committed after the leader of the House bad moved in the proper direction, lie did not,think this was a serious matter but a breach of privilege had undoubtedly 'been committed, land the Standing Orders should be upheld or done away with. Sir Joseph AVard did not agree,that a breach of privilege had been committed. I| o also asked the Speaker to rule whether "publication" had taken place as had been previously alleged. The Speaker said his opinion was that Mr. Gasquoine had not published any of the evidence taken , before (be committee, neither had he published any document presented to tho committee. Explanation Satisfactory. .After further discussion the Premier moved that Mr. Gasquoine's explanation be accepted as satisfactory and that no further action bo takon by the House. This was carried without dissent.