MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 963, 2 November 1910, Page 8

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

THE 6HAR6E AGAINST JR. WALTER SYMES.

PETTOIS Md FEES.

REIARKABLE CORRESPONDENCE.

THE CASE AGAIftST HON. T. K. MAC@OHALD.

~ The Hirie Allegations Committee :: of the .House of--Representatives met at 10,30 a.m. "yesterday, Mr. Hanan - in the. chaiK ' Mr. M. Myers appeared ,on behalf of Mr. Hine, who had preferred certain charges" against Mr. ,W. Symes, formerly' member -of Parliament, for Stratford.' Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K,C. (with'him Mr. Sharp) appeared half of Mr. Symes. The chairman intimated that it had been decided to proceed with charge 3 &£ follows :— That the said Walter Symes, in or about the year 1906, and againill 1908, while a member of Parliament, charged' and received from a number of West Coast lessees of . •Native /lands - commissions or sums of. money for preparing and oon- . ducting petitions in Parliament on their behalf. H. Otterson, Clerk of the House of Representatives, produced petitions presented by Mr. Symes in 1900-1906 on behalf of. a number of West Coast lessees., The first petition, -was .-presented- by Mr.. Symes .on August 15,. 1905. It prayed, on bfehalf of seventeen ■' petitioners,' for , the refund of moneys paid as lessees of West Coast lands in, connection with certain awards which were abortive. .The committee at first reported that it had no .recommendation to make;.. This was on September .14, .1905./ Mr. Symes moved that the, petition be . referred back, to the committee, and . made a speech which occupied-several columns of volume 134 of, Hansard, pa§e 654, in support of. the, .motion., Tlijs • was carried, and on; October 12, 190.5, the committee recommended that the petition be referred to the Government I for favourable, consideration. Mr. Symes' spoke a few words on the occasion, ;.and the recommendation ,was 1 adopted.' In 1906 Mr. Symes presented two' petitions. . One presented on October 3 was on behalf of Geo. Hutchison and others'. On October 22 the committee . reported, , recommending that'the petition'be referred to the Government, for favourable, .- considers?tion. Oil. October 10 Mr. Symes presented a petition on behalf of F. ,]). Lysaght and;' three others, jtetitioning for the refund of-money .paid to lift the award under the West Coast Settlement Reserve Act. On October 22 the ' committee , .recommended that . it should be referred to the .Government for favourable, consideration. The Committees. ; ■ . At ■ Sir' Joseph Ward's request Mr. Otterson gave the names of the members of the two committees which considered the petitions, namely, Messrs. Allison, Buddo (chairman), Davey, Fowlds, W. Fraser, ' Kidd, Rhodes, ■'Rutherford, Smith, . and the Hon. Mills in 1905, and Messrs. Symes, Hall, Lewis, Lethbndge, Lawry, (chairman), R. M'Kenzie, Remington, Gray, Wood, , and the Hon. J. A. Millar in' 1906. . - The Hon. J. A. Millar: A great point was made' about speeches made oy Mr. Symes. , Is .it not the usual thing for a member to speak when a petition is unfavourably reported upon? Mr. Otterson: It is very often done. ', .Mr.-Millar:,So that Miv Symes took no unusual action? . . Mr. Otterson:'No. Mr.'.'Massey: My opinion is that it '•is. not- the' general rule; although it is •very frequently : done. _ . Mr.- Otterson : It is frequently done, ■though, it is not'the general rule. An Account. Bryan Cuthbort ■ Lysaght, sheep-far-:mer, Hawera, said lie was one ot the executors and trustees of . his late father, who had been dead about-seven ■ years. His father had, been' the holder of one of:the West-Coast leases. He j and a number of other lessees surrender- j ed their leases' in order to get more satisfactory leases. His .father had | 'been put to an. expense of £347 ss. '4d. in connection with an arbitration award that, had proved abortive, in connection with thes'e "• leases.There ' were a large number of persons in the same position as his father. There-would be between 60 or 70 .and a hundred. He and his co-trustee, were desirous of, obtaining a refund of ; the .expenses. He 'had signed the petition produced. The petition was handed-to. witness' by Mr. David-/ son, one of the lessees. He had'had no communication from Mr. Symes up to tho time of his'signing'the-petition. He would expect; Mr. Symes, as member ;for,the district, to-take charge, of the . petition.. As the .result of that petition he received from tho Government the sum of- £347, 55., 4d. a few ■ months after the petition; was' presented.; He did not receive -the money' through Mr. Symes. He produced an account from Mr. Symes, of which the following is an exact reproduction:— •

Later he received the following letter from Mr. Sj'hies :— Executors James R. Lysaght's Estate, 1 Hawera. - ■ Stratford, 20th' April, 1906. • Dear Sirs,—l omitted to mention in my claim for commission and expanses incurred; that the / whole of the work, even, the sending of your claim to the Government, and getting it before Cabinet, was done by myself; and although you have long since reoeived the amount of your claim, £Zil ss. Id., my small but just claim ,of ,£l7 7s. 3d., sent you a month ago, has so far been ignored. Had „ you performed-a .like service, for my- . ' eelf and made a, similar claim I would have sent you a oheque by return post, with a letter of thanks. ; But apparently, all men are not. built, on : the same lines. " ' _ I would not again undertake the work or render similar service,', to say ■ nothing of the out-of-pocket expenses, for double the amount of rily claim. ;lly business, is'insurance and general - agency, and .1 cannot afford to work for nothing,.and as I have rendered the service and incurred expense in . successfully getting r refunded••to.you-; £347 ss. 4d., which you had long ago • written off. as irrecoverable, 1 expect • niy olaim to be paid. So far, Messrs. P. 'Wilson and T. Frere are the only lessees who have 1 paid my claim and thanked me for getting a refund of money they, had long ago. given, up'as past recovery. I. shall be glad of. a cheque by return post. > • . Tours truly, • ■ - WALTER SYMES. Still later a second letter was received from Mr. Symes' (the following is a facsimile' of the letter here referred to, and put in as evidence by Mr. Myers:—

A Claim Refused. Witness did not pay Mr. Symes his claim. Witness also had one of the West, Coast leases and subsequently sent in a claim for a refund from tho Government. He received some £40 odd. His brother also obtained a refund. To Mr. Skerrett: Tho West Coast lessees had a long-standing grievance and had surrendered their leases in the hope of getting others. They paid the arbitration fees incurred by themselves , and by the Natives. Tho arbitration proved to be abortive so their exponses wore thrown away and they had no , valid .leases. He did not know that Messrs. W. and A. Symes, who were also lessees, had conducted an expensive litigation in connection with the leases, nor that Mr. Symes had acquired a great deal of information ill connection with this litigation. He knew Mr. Davidson, a West Coast lessee, residing in Hawera. He also knew Goo. Johnston, one of the signatories to tho petition. He took an active interest in pressing for a return of the arbitration fees. He was a sort of manager for the claimants. He was not aware they had any understanding with Mr. Symes that he was to receive payment for his services. Mr. Moore was a 00-oxecutor with witness. He did not know whether there had .been any communication -between Moore and Johnston in the matter.. Mr: Skerrett: Do you know that Mr.. Johnston, on your behalf, arranged -that Mr. Symes should collect the amount at a charge of 5 per cent? Witness: "No, I Was not aware of -that." Mr. Skerrett: If Mr. Johnston had made that arrangement, would you con-sider-it a fair and reasonable arrangement? —"Before ho made any arrangement of-that sort he should have consulted the other lessees." Mr. Skerrett: Would you not regard it as a perfectly fair and reasonable arrangement?—"No, because I did not consider Mr. Symes was entitled to it." Mr. Skerrett: You were not a constituent of Mr. Symes?—"No." Mr. Skerrett: Why should he collect your moneys for you? Would you not have had to get a lawyer if he nad not acted? —"I don't think it would have been, necessary to pay a lawyer." (Laughter.) Mr. Skerrett: He,would have been a rara avis then, in my experience. _ Now, will you swear that Mr. Moore did not go to Sir. Caplin and ask him to take the necessary proceedings to obtain this amount from the Treasury ?—"I have no recollection of that." Mr. Skerrett: You don't know that Mr. Caplin had not got sufficient information, and that he suggested you should refer the matter to Mr.v John-' ston? —"He may-.havp done so." Mr. Skerrett,: And that Mr. Johnston then asked Mr. Symes to collect the amount?—"l don't know that."

Incident of a Campaign. In answer to other questions witness said that the letters produced wero given to Mr. Hinc by witness during the last election contest. Witness thought Symes was trying to obtain a commission ho was not entitled to. That was the reason he gave Mr. Hine the letters. He believed parts of the letters were published in the Stratford "Post," so tho matter was known throughout the length and breadth of the district. To Sir Joseph Ward: He 1 had not made any representations to the Government in connection with Mr. Symes's account or the letters he had received from him. The trustees received their amount direct from the Government Department, not through Mr. Symes. His own money came direct from the Government also. To Mr. Millar: He not employed any agent - to get his own refund. To Sir. Massey: He did not consider there was any necessity to employ an agent to collect the money. He had not heard that Mr. Symes intended to_ make a charge. He thought it was an improper thing for a member of 'Parliament to make a charge, and he objected in consequence. To Mr. Reed: The letters were forwarded to Mr. Hi tie's committee before the election. To Mr. Myers: "I thought as, Mr. Symes was a member of Parliament he was not entitled to any commission." A Bill That Was Paid. William Wilson, farmer,: residing near Hawera, said one T. Frere was in partnership with his brother, P. Wilson, as a: farmer.' They held a West Coast lease, and claimed a refund for expenses incurred in connection with an abortive award. The claim was about £198 10s. A refund was obtained in March, 1906. These gentlemen we're constituents of Mr.. Symes, but they were,out of the Dominion- at the time-witness recovered the money. Witness hold power of attorney for.them, and signed the second petition for them. He reoeived the money for Messrs. Wilson and Frere from. the, . Government direct. He was . not aware that Mr. Symes or anyone else intervened. He paid a sum to Mr. Walter Symes on March 24, 1906. He paid this, sum in consequence of a letter he received from Mr. Symes. He sent a cheque whenever he reoeived the money. To Mr. Skerrett: Messrs. Wilson and Frere had for many years been pressing on Parliament for a refund. Mr. Hutchison at one time presented ; a petition. He could not' recollect who promoted the petition he signed. Probably ho sent information to a Mr. G. Johnston wh'en he got the money. Probably he showed all the papers he had, to, Mr. Johnston, No claim was made by Mr. Syines on witness personally for a commission on £50 obtained

by- him. He was a constituent of Mr. Symes. • Mr. Skerrett: Did you know that Mr. Symes arranged to collect these moneys from the Government as agent, and ohargd those who wore not his • constituents with 5 per oent. for collection? -"No.". Further cross-examined, .witness said there was no arrangement— express or implied—between Wilson and Frere and Syme? that he should get a commission in respect to.the amount. "An Extraordinary Charge." Sir Joseph Ward: When you got the £198,; did you get it from a Government Department?—"l suppose so:" ■ .• • Did you get it from Mr. Symes or any person 'outside, the Government?— "Not that I am-iaware of." • Mr. Myers: When you sent your cheque to Mr.. Symes, did you consider he had rendered you a service- that justified your so doing?—"l. did not think it was a correct thing for any mombcr to charge a commission, but as my brother and Mr. Frere were out of the colony and there was no ; other chance of their getting the monoy, I did not think it was an unjust thing to meet the claim. I thought it was an extraordinary charge, but as they were away and I saw no further chance of recovery I paid the commission." Negotiations with Mr. Symes. Joseph George Haddow, solicitor, of Auckland, said that for about nine months in 1906 and 1907 ho wns in partnership with Mr. G. Hutchison in Auckland. Mr. Hutchison then left for Homo, and witness had general instructions to act as his agent, but ho had no power of attorney. Mr. Hutchison had promoted a petition to Parliament to recover certain money, and it had been favourably reported upon. The amount claimed by Mr. Hutchison was £134 odd, which was paid by him to nniift a ieaea< -ia haviag. been one of

the lessees. In addition lie asked for £125 for defending a Supremo Court action which proved abortive. Both these sums had been petitioned for through Mr. Symes. Witness's instructions were to write to Mr. Symes and ask for his aid to have the matter settled. Witness understood, that the assistance of Mr. Symeswas desired as a land agent familiar with the leases. The following correspondence passed:— An Offer. Auckland, , May 3rd,. 1007. Walter Symes, Esq., Waverley. ... Dear Sir,— We enclose a copy of a petition presented to Parliament last-session by .Mr. George Hutchison, and on October 29 th referred by . the Petitions Committee to the Government for favourable consideration. Mr. Hutchison, who left for England on business oil March 28th, instructed us to take the necessary steps to obtain. payment of the sums referred to, and left authority for. Mr.Haddow to receive the amount on his behalf. We understand that you are. conversant with the history of these awards, and were largely instrumental in obtaining payment of the . amounts out of pocket by. other leaseholders similarly placed. We shall be glad if we ■ can enlist your ' valuable assistance in obtaining payment, of the amounts expended- by Mr: Hutchison. With regard to the sum of .£125 that, we understand, was spent by Mr. Hutchison in testing the validity of the awards; and by 'which, had the proceedings been successful, all the leaseholders ' would have profited. . . . ■ This matter we recognise may call for the expenditure of some time and trouble, and if both sums are obtained (and both were referred by the- committee for the favourable consideration of the Government) we aro ■ empowered • to hand yon a sum: equal to ten per cent, of the whole in appreciation of your kind assistance. Yours trnly, (Signed). HUTCHISON AND HADDOW. P.S.—The claim for the return of ■ the £125.is quite as gopd.as.that for the. amount spent in uplifting the awards. . . Its repayment has been recognised as just and right by two different Ministers. We should take it as a special favour if you would expedite tne matter as far as lies in. your power.—H. and H. Higher Percentaga Wanted. Private. Stratford, May 7th, 1907. Hutchison' and Haddow, Barristers and Solicitors, " Auckland. Dear Sirs-,— ■ I aw duly in receipt of your private letter of .the 3rd inst., with enclosures. In reply more particularly to the last paragraph of your letter, where you say this matter you. recognise may call for the expenditure of some time, and trouble, and, if both sums are obtained, you are empowered to hand -me a sum equal to ten per cent, of the whole in appreciation of my kind assistance; overlooking the fact that it entails a ■ good deal of expenditure of money .as well- as time 1 and trouble, an ordinary debt collection would bo 10 per. cent. : Under .the .extraordinary circumstances, if you. appreciate my kind assistance, it should be at. least 20 per cent, as the amounts in question have no doubt been written off" Mr: Hutchi-. ■ son's books years ago as .uncollect: able. 1 value my time 1 for either or both sums at 20 per. cent. If this meets with your, approval, kindly advise me at yonr earliest convenience. 'Yours truly, (Signed) WALTER SYMES. A Second Offer. (Draft.) Private. Auckland, . 1 May 9th, 1907. Walter Symes, Esq., M.H.R., Stratford. Dear Sir,— Re-G. Hutchison's claim. We have your letter of the 7th inst. Wo regret we have no authority to act on your suggestion. However, we do not anticipate the matter will be one of such difficulty .as you suppose. It has been recommended by the com- , mittce for the favourable consideration of the Government, 'and as to the first portion, claims on precisely the same footing have already been paid.' We are willing, however, to take the responsibility of .paying,s per cent, on the larger amount, and 15 per cent, on the smaller (£125). Yours truly, (Sgd;) HUTCHISON AND HADDOW. "Will Not Lift A Finger." Replying to Messrs. Hutchison and Haddow'e letter .of May .9, , Mr. Symes wrote: — "I decline your offer absolutely, it. being below your previous one. You say you do not anticipate any difficulty. Well,- I do, and you will find my anticipations correct before it is over. Who got the committee's favourable recommendation? If you do not know, I will tell you. It was myself, not Mr. Hutchison, who had tried for years and failed... The whole working of the case lias-been done by . myself uiiaided. The claims that have • been paid was during the Seddon Government. This Administration can easily say, as they have already done, that they are not bound by tne Acts of their predecessors. I know that I can get these claims altered or otherwise, but if all -the petitioners are going to treat me the same as your firm, propose, well, it will be otherwise. I am not using this ai, a threat, but in common fairness and justice to myself. I will not lift a finger to help the ..above claims under £20 each;', if you agree to this, I will then go. to . work vigorously." . ' . ;~A Guarantee Sought. On May 18, 1907, Walter Syines forwarded a letter received by him from the Hon. 'Robert M'Nab (Minister for Lauds), stating that the claims .had been referred to the Public Trustee. A memo, was added by Mr. Symes as follows: — "I consider the matter is now shelved by the Cabinet. I am tired of the whole suhject, having dene a " lot of work, and had all the worry .over this matter, and expended a goci deal of money and time. I do not intend going any further without some guarantee of being recouped, if successful, nothing under the amount mentioned in my last. "(Signed) WALTER SYMES." These letters, said. Mr. Haddow, seemed to. put a different complexion on it. Up to then he had considered he was negotiating for Sir. Symes's assistance, as a land agent, but he did not quite know what to make of this. Thore were other claimants, and he was not sure to what Mr. Symes referred. He asked Mr. Hutchison's former manager,. and he seemed to think it referred to other claimants. He was also of opinion that without Mr. Symes's assistance the money, could not be got. . ' . . Witness rather objected to the letter, and he wrote Mr. Symes as follows on May 25, 1907: — "The position is this: Mr. Hutchison has earmarked this, money foi speoific purposes. Anything .over 5 per ccnt of the first claim (£134 odd) .1 shall have to pay myself, whereas the case is quite different with the other fund. ■ I can, however, meet you in the matter if you will agree to allocate your remuneration, accordingly, i.e., take £40 for getting the two sums, but of this amount allot 5 per . cent of .£134 -to the larger claim and the whole of the balance to the smaller." To this Mr. Symes replied on June 12, agreeing to the terms mentioned. Ho added: "1 havo put the matter in motion, but of course the money, will have to bo voted by Parliament, but yon may rest assured that I shall do all in my powor to get that done this session.

Up to this point witness did not know but that the money was immediately payable: He did not know that it I had to be passed Ky Parliament. He thought .everything had been done. . ' "Nevor Lost Sight of the Matter." On February 10, 1908, the UnderSecretary to the Minister for Internal Affairs, in reference to delay in paying the amount of the . award, said it was in consequence of a letter received from Messrs. Skerrett and Wylie in respect to the claim of a- Mr. Drury to a portion of the sum claimed as a refund by Mr. Hutchison. On November 8, 1907, Mr. Symes wrote to Mr. Haddow stating: "I met Mr. Hutchison yesterday, He had jiist landed in .New Zealand. I quite agree with you it will be ■ quite useless Mr. Hutchison taking any steps on his own account. In fact in my opinion ho will do well to keep out of it .until the vote is passed. by this House. I have never lost sight of the matter, neither do I intend doing so, and everything that can be done up to the present has ■been carefully attended to." In reply to letters from Mr. Hutchison- regarding the moneys to -be refunded to him the Hon. Dr. Findlay wrote on February 19, 1907, that he had referred the matter to Cabinet. Continuing, Mr. Haddow said that in justice to Mr. Syines he must' say lie thought he wasvfully aware of the trouble with Durie and was taking steps to that end. Eventually witness. received £134 15s. from the Government and paid Mr. Symes £6 15s. on behalf of Mr. Hutchison who was then out of tte country. This was in August, 1908. Mr. Hutchison seemed quite satisfied that the amount should have been paid to Mr. Symes. When he returned Mr. Hutchison asked witness if he would go on with the matter and witness said he had had enough of it. He received a letter from Mr Hutchison about seven months after the payment was made to Mr. Symes objecting to it: When Mr. Hutchison' returned to New Zealand he appeared to be anxious to approach the himself to recover the other sum. ' Witness thought it would be unwise for, him to do this and Mr. Symes concurred. He thought Mr. Hutchison's method miglit be unwise. He might cause delay, by being too strenuous. Interesting Cross-examination. Mr. Myers: Was there any otlier reason? Mr.. Haddow: No. Mr. Myers: Will you look at your letter, of November 15, 1907, to Mr. Hutchison? ■ Mr. Haddow (after search): I have not got it. . Mr. Myers: Were there _ any references. to political, matters in. the correspondence? Mr. HaHdow: ' 'In coirespondenw'with Mr. Hutchison', I told him I'did not think his interference would help matters." ' To Mr. Skerrett: Mr. Hutchison had a fecommendation of Parliament in respect to the amount of £125. He regarded it merely as a matter of collection. It was witness who suggested a commission. What Mr. Hutchison got. was only what every, other lessee got. He got £134 odd, and on account of the intervention of another party the committee's recommendation was disregarded. To Sir Joseph Ward: Mr. Hutchison' had left, a blank receipt with him for the money. Until Mr. Hutchison returned (about November 5, 1907) he was not in a position to send an ordinary voucher. .He thought the blank receipt would be enough for the Government, but he knew now that it 'would not. '. He did not offer Mr. Symes a commission on the written authority of Mr. Hutchison. In his' original instructions there was mention that the IJrury's claim was extant. Etys instructions were that the claim was not to, be. recognised. The effect, of the claim was to cause a, delay from December to August in the payment of the money. The sum of £134 17s he received direct from a Government Department. The. amount of £125 for' legal expenses claimed by ! Mr. Hutchison had not been received at all. Sir J. Ward: Do you suggest that Mr. Symes's influence was responsible for the payment of £134 ?—I think his work had something to do with it. Position of the Government. Do you suggest his influence, with the. Government was responsible?—No, I do not. Sir Joseph Ward:.l was going to have asked if you would not have considered Mr. Symes's influence was sufficient to have enabled him to earn the other sum. Mr. Myers: We do not.suggest that the Government knew of the payment of a commission. Sir Joseph Ward: What did you mean by suggesting that Mr. Hutchison's manners were rather strenuous?—" That his methods were rather strong-hand-ed." . Sir Joseph:, You didn't indicate, it was on account of political strehuousness?—"l. don't know that I had sorted them out. 1.-had referred; to his methods generally." The chairman (Mr. Hanan) ruled further discussion along this line irrelevant. ■ Hon. J. A. Millar: Is it part of the duty of a member, of Parliament to attend to the private , business of his constituents?—"l do not think so." Was it not a private business of Mr. Hutchison's. after Parliament had voted that money, to collect,, it himself?— "Yes. When you offered the.commission to Mri Symc-s it was only to collect the money? It had nothing to do with the promotion of a.' petition?—"l thought I was dealing with a land agent who understood the transaction, had lived on the scene, and was familiar with tlio leases, from childhood." , Mr. Massoy: Do you consider that when the payment of public money is involved, such business is public business?—"l ,should say it is very difficult to sort it out." What is your opinion? Is it public or private?—"l do not know that I have formed an opinion." Further questioned,' Mr. Haddow said if it was through a. petition which was dealt with in a public way it was public business. When he offered the commission for the collection of £125 he never thought the sum would be paid." . "Entirely In the Dark." Mr. Massey: How did you expect Mr. Symes to earn the sum you offered for the collection of £125?—" Mr. Hutchison's manager told ine that Mr- ,Synu» was conversant with the whole position. I was entirely in the dark, and I had to take that opinion." Did you expect to pay this sum to Mr. Symes on account of influence yo would have with the Government?— "Government influence-was never mentioned." • . That is not what I asked you.— "When I got one of the letters from Mr. Symes, I could not help thinking there might be something of tho son, but I did not know whether it was that, or the adverse claim." To Mr; Myers: He did not think the payment was an advisable one to mau! If ho had not taken up that position it would probably never have been heard of. 'Mr. Myers.: What would never have been- heard of?—" The trouble." Mr. Skerrett : Supposing 3 - ou or your partner wero n member of Parliament; do you think there would be any objection to that firm undertaking a claim against tho New Zealand Government? You know it has been dono over and over again by people of high repute?— "I am; of opinion that in view of the difficulties that have arisen, and the fact that it is so hard to. steer clear of. that 6ort of thing, it would bp wise not to. Ido not say it-is improper. .There are many, examples of it.'

At this stage the committee adjourned till. Thursday morning. It is probable that hearing of evidence in the charges against Messrs. Symes and Major will occupy Thursday and Friday, .and that the charge against Mr. Kaihau will not be heard till nest week.