MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 965, 4 November 1910, Page 6

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

•t:;,' -state.ADYEimswe.-- ; M HfRAORDIfIARY LETTER. "IiiLfBE.THAT I COULD FIX THIS :'-":'.' ■ ; HATTER W" ■i- "'■.INTERESTING!-EVIDENCE.-.-:

■" The Select Committee of the House of Representatives that is inquiring into the charges? made by Mr.'Hine,,H.P., met again yesterday, morning. Mr. M. Myers appeared for Mr. Hine, and. Mr.'.. Skerrett, K.C., 'with him Mr. Sharp, for Mr. Walter Symes. The charge under consideration was that the "-said. Walter Symes, in or'about the year 1906, and. again in 1908, while a member of Parliament, charged and received/from a number of West Coast lessees of Native lands commissions or snins of. money, for preparing. and conducting- petitions .to .Parliament on ■ their behalf.;" ' '' . A West Coast Lessee. ' v 1 6. 8.. Pearce,. M.P., rof -Patea, said he was one'of'the West Coast lessees. The "confirmed" leaseholders • had appointed a committee to act for them. To pay, the expenses they made a'levy of so much per .£IOO, according to the rateable value. The litigation was "the'case of the Maoris v.- Turner. The whole of the costs amounted to about- .£3OOO. They were not paid by Mr. Symes; He wonld pay his iproportion as a lessee. The Symes firm were leaseholders at' the; time of the liti,fation.' He knew Geo. Johnston, but he was not, to his knowledge, appointed a manager in connection' with the litigation. To Mr. Skerrett: Mr. H. D. Bell acted as counsel for the leaseholders _in : an original' petition and in the litigation. HeMcnew nothing of the litigation between Messrs. Symes. and the Public' Trustee. He note.d' from the petition ; that Messrs.; Symes .were petitioners'in 1905.-. To Sir Joseph. Ward: The -.£3OOO was ' not wholly, in" connection with the 1901 litigation. It was the accumulated ex-: ponses from 1887 onwards. The committee did-not suggest-that any pressure should be brought on the Government by way-of petitions/' Mr.'Myers put in correspondence that had taken place between Mr.'Symes and Messrs. :W. and S. IGower. The first letter was from Mr.. Symes to Mr. Gower, Whenuakura, and was dated Stratford, August 8, 1906. He wrote:—■ :' :; : "A Fee of £20. .'' .•■ '. "May I ask were W. andS. Gower ' paid their claim? "If so, they do not require any further information. The information you ask for is : 'rather lengthy, and does not come within my Parliamentary duties, but is a matter of'business, and can only be furnished ■- -.' upon payment-of my'fee-of :i£2o,- for■ commission'and charges.' Upon receipt of your cheque for above amount particulars and information supplied." In a pcstscriDt Mr..Symes said: "lam preparing a petition for signatures of those who were not included in that petition." '', ■ The.next letter was to S. Gower, and was-dated June-26, 1908. It wasas foU low's':—-" ■ '"'"■ ' ; ; "Dear Gowef, —I am just sending this ; rerainder,..feeling assured that it has escaped your , memory, that the-.', cheques you promised me have not yet come, to hand. With kind, .re-, gards, believe me,—Tours' sincerely,, .Walter Symes." . • . ' : '\ A Cheque Returned. . -Then there was a long letter-from Mr. Symes to Mr. S.-Gower, dated November 13, 1908. It read:- ........ . .

,:"Dear Sir,—l was very much surprised to see a letter from yourself to Mr. Hemingway, of the 2nd inst., published in . the Stratford .' 'Evening Post' 'of yesterday,"the'l2th inst.,'in wWoh you say I demanded of you .£5 for commission for.recovery of money paid on confiscated leases. This statement is contrary to f act,. i>nd so is jour whole letter. I never called at your homestead at Mangamingi in my life; but, on the 2nd December, 1905, aof. three weeks,-but four weeks prior x> last election, in company with Mr. J. Granville and Mr. James Sexton, on out way to Omona, when passing your shed when .shearing was in full .swing, yon came to the door, and we ifot out of the buggy and went into ihe ehed. You kindly showed me your oil engine and ; general working of the shearing machines, ■ and v in' the bourse' of conversation, I asked you If your brother William had told you !he result of the lessees' petition. You said no. I then told you that' I' had been .successful in establishing a tase and claim, 1 arid that a sum of £2000 had been placed upon the Supplementary Estimates in consequence. You said it ■ was the first'you had heard of it,, and that you were pleaaid' to hear of the good result, and '; isked me if there were any. expenses incurred. I said no, but that three or four lessees had suggested that we lhould make little surprise' presents Va few of tho members, and I mentioned their names who had prominently helped ■to get the matter through, you at once acquiesced, and laid you would be pleased to join. I' tiaid if will not cost us more than a fiver each. Nothing further was done in the matter, as I was too busy to" attend to it until I met you at Patea races on. the 20th April last, when. 1 mentioned your brother William's death,, and , asked you the cause, and you told me that it was carelessness" on his part, that he had caught coldafter an attack of measles. You then said: Did my brother ever give you that cheque? I said: What for?' You then said, for the presents you mentioned for helping to get the arbitration money refunded; I told you that he had not done so, and that, as a matter of fact, I had never seen yonr brother, nor had I .ncntioned .the matter to him. You said: I wall Bend you a cheque. I heard nothing further from yon, nor did I do anything until some time in the early part of last June I met one- of the lessees, who reminded iae of our conversation re. the surprise presents, and asked me-.if.'.l had done anything in the matter. I said no, -beyond mentioning the fact to one or two, yourself" included, /and ~.that you had mentioned the matter at the last Patea races by asking if William had ever given me a cheque. I told .the lessee .in question that I would -get the matter, going; and fix- it up •before the close of the session, and wrote you accordingly, 1 but never mentioned-any amount, as no amount was mentioned at Patea. The mat ter was one entirely for your own consideration, and whatever the amount " of your cheque was I would supplement it with a like amount, as would all ;tho others, and so far the only blaraeablo thine; about it. ?n f flT ..« I am concerned, is that I have not had time to see the ethers; and since it is sought to' make political capital out of the matter, I docline to do anything further in< the matter (beyond paying my quota of £5 at any time towards the suggested project). It tfas not even my own suggestion, but that of others who wished to show their appreciation of a spontaneous and kindly act, but which ray political opponents want to misconstrue, and in order that no further misconstruction can be placed upon my action, I now return you the amount .of, your oheque (£5), ami shall, so ' soon as possible, see those who asked me to undertake the matter, when I shall give them my reasons for declining to act further, and for the steps I have taken.—Believe me, yours truly, Walter Symes.

,Sir Joseph Ward asked Mr. Myers, in the 'absence of Mr. Gower, if it was suggested that these letters had in any way been communicated by Mr. Gower to the Government. .- ■ : ,■ , ... Mr. Myers: No. Sir Joseph: So far as I understand that is not suggested. I understand there was some correspondence in the newspapers about, the matter -just prior to tho .last election, but there was no correspondence with the Government..- . ANOTHER CHARCE. ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS. .QUESTION "OF INFLUENCE. The next charge was:— i "That ,the said; AValter Syines,.* in ■ the year'l9oß, while a-Parliamentary election was presently in prospect, in . which the said AValter Symes in- ■ tended to .become, and subsequently became a candidate, and being then actually a member of Parliament, did threaten",-or'cause to be threatened, a certain newspaper that lie-would use his influence as a member of Parliament, to' prevent Government adver- . tisements. from being given to the said newspaper, unless' he received the. support, or was;'treated to his own satisfaction; by . tho said newspaper during the said election contest." Condition. Mr. W. David'Anderson, solicitor, o! Stratford, a director of the company owning the Stratford 'Tost," said the company was formed to buy. out the two Stratford papers 'and to start one paper under a , different, name.... Mr. Myers here put'in,a letter from Mr. Symes, dated; House of Bepresentatives, October i, 1905:— - | "J. M!Cluggage, Esq., J. P., Whanganiomona. Dear M'Cluggage,—l am duly in receipt of your confidential letter re getting the paper put on the list of Government advertisersf this will depend entirely on the treatment that is meted .out to me during the election. I believe that I could fix this matter up, but will not do so until after the election, and as lam treated so I will 'treat,the paper. You are at liberty-to;make use of this privately with manager-arid directors, but not for. publication. With kind regards,' yours faithfully, Walter Symes." M'Cluggage, in forwarding the letter, wrote on.it a memo, asking that it be returned. ..■-'.;■.- Witness,.in answer to further questions by Mr. Myers, said that Mr. M'Cluggage was asked to send an application through Mr. Symes to have the paper put on the list of those getting Government adver-. tisements. As Mr. Symes - had not for-warded-the application, the. manager was instructed to go- down to Wellington and see the Minister'in charge of the Department. ■ . ■ Mr. Myers: Who was the Minister? Witness: I am , not quite certain. Sir Joseph Ward: I was the Minister. Mr. Myers: As a matter'of fact, you were put on the list. . Witness: Yes. We were put on straight away. There was no trouble at all. We were put on without any question at'all —without any trouble. To Mr. Skerrett: He would expect that when the two old papers went out of existence, their names would be.struck off. the list. -The -new .company asked Mr. M'Cluggage to write to Mr. Symes.. We were put o;i the list untrammelled by any conditions, and the newspaper did not alter the: conrse- of its politics. When the manager went' to ' 6ee the Minister, he; did not know if he had Mi. Syraes's. letter with him. Sir Joseph Ward: As a matter of fact I have never seen the letter.

Witness:. No. We never intended you should see it. As our application had not been forwarded, we- decided to go direct to headquarters. Mr. Copping was the Press Association representative, and he alone was authorised to act in that capacity. The politics of the paper were left-to the editor except on the land question, upon which a freehold policy had been Five out of the seven directors were Oppositionists. History of the Letter. Joseph .M'Cluggage, "storekeeper, Whanaamomona, said he was a director of the company owning the Stratford "Evening Post." He remembered receiving the letter from Mr. Symes (then at Wellington)/ which had been put in! He knew Mr. Symes well, and'was supporting'him at that election. The letter was in answer to one he had sent ( to - Mr. Symes, the nature of which he could not remember. -He gave Mr. Symes's letter to the secretary to show to the editor. , The letter he had regarded as a private one. Hβ received no other letter from Mr. Symes on the samo subject. : To Sir Joseph .-Ward':' .Ho personally had made, no representations this letter'to have the paper placed on' the advertising list. '•■■■. - : y ■Mr.'Millar':-How did the' letter come into the hands of the company? Witness replied that he did riot know. Mr. Hemingway, town ; clerk, of Straf> ford, who was secretary of Mr. Mine's' committee read it at a public meeting in Stratford. ' Mr. Millar contended that the letter was private, and the Stratford "Post" Company had no right to the possession of it. .■•'-'■'. Mr. Buchanan l (to .witness): Did you consider it was private?—l considered it was absolutely a private communication to myself. . . >' Yet you passed it on to others? Sir Joseph Ward: He was asked to do so by Mr. Symes. Mr. Myers: If you had been asked by your co-directors to send the letter would you have considered the answer private? —I-was not so asked. Mr. Myers said Mr. Anderson's recollection differed from this. )'■ Interview with the Minister. Wm. Chas. Whitlock, proprietor of the Hastings "Standard,"' and formerly manager of the "Egraont Settler," and subthe Stratford "Evening Post," recollected coming to Wellington in October, 1905, to see the Colonial Secretary. He brought Mr. Symes's letter, which-was the occasion of his visit, with him. He saw Mr. Jennings, who' arranged he should go in the tram for a distance with tho Minister in charge of the advertising Department. Ho showed tho letter to Mr. Jennings, but ho did not think he showed it to the Minister. He thought he told the Minister Mr. Symes had declined to help them in the matter. After conference with the Minister he sent in a formal application to the Department and tho paper was placed on tho list. To Mr. Skerrett: He had an indistinct recollection that an application was previously made to placo tho Stratford "Evening Post" on the list. The Minister explained why the "Egmont Settler" had been struck off. He had no difficulty in getting the Minister to accede to tho request, which was granted within a week. Tho request was trammelled by no conditions. Nature of the Charge. The question was raised of the relevancy of such questions as the last. Sir Joseph Ward eaid it was a charge against the Government.

Mr. Massey: Mr. Hine has said that. Sir Joseph said Mr. Skerrett was not representing the Government. Mr. Hine had included this as one of the Tammany charges he made in his statement to the House. Mr. Myers: Hβ referred to The Dominion, but I didn't know he referred to any other newspaper. A member of the committee: Mr. Myers has not charged the Government. Sir Joseph Ward: What is tho motive then of asking whether the letter from Mr. Symes was shown to me or we discussed it, if not to implicate the Government? Mr. Myers: I think it arises out of Sir Joseph's previous questions. The chairman (Mr. Hanan) said it was quite clear there was no implication against the Government directly or indirectly. Mr. Myers: I should say I did not hear Sir Joseph explain that he had not seen the letter. The chairman: I think we should try and. confine the examination to the charges against Mr. Symes. Continuing, witness informed Mr. Myers;that the paper did not alter its political colour. It did not support any candidate very strongly during the election. No Conditions Imposed. To Sir Joseph "Ward: He (Sir Joseph) had been unable to give witness an interview in Wellington owing to being too busy. The interview took place in the train near Palmerston North. The request witness made was that the. paper should be, reinstated on the advertising list. Sir Joseph said he did not see ■ why the paper should not have advertisements. A formal application was then put in and granted. During 1905 a considerable amount was spent by the Government with the "Post." The firm printed the rolls. Sir Joseph: If I stated that the amount was .£llß 18s. 6d., a higher,amount than ever previously paid in this district at an election, would you contradict me ? Witness: "No." Would you as an honest man hand me a letter marked as that, is?—"A certain permission to use it is given." As a matter of fact did you show me that letter?—"l do not remember having shown it to you. I distinctly. remember showing it to Mr. Jennings."If you had shown, me the letter would you havo remembered ?—"I think I would have remembered." Was the Government Charged? The : relevancy of this line of question was again raised and Sir Joseph Ward said the statement made by Mr. Hine in the House on the matter of Tammanyism and Mr. Myers's suggestion he (Sir Joseph) had seen the letter justified the question. Mr. Massey: Did Mr. Myers suggest that ?.-'■' The chairman (Mr.-Hanan) -. Witness has said he has-no recollection of showing you the letter. He cannot go' further than that. ■. . ■ tj Sir Joseph Ward- The; "Egmont Post" previously did not receive Government advertising, but when it and the "Settler" were absorbed and the reconstructed company issued the "Stratford Post" you received advertising without any conditions of any. kind or sort being imposed? .—"Absolutely without any conditions." Was any attempt made on my part or the part of the Government to influence the paper prior to tho general election in 1905 with regard to any candidate ?—"The question of the policy of the paper never occurred in the interview or correspondence." . ■ -' The- chairman: Was the treatment of candidates?—" Nor the treatment of candidates." ■ Sir Joseph Ward: Was there any attempt to buy the support of the paper and so'establish-a condition of Tammanyism ?—"Absolutely none." How the Letter Changed Hands. The Hon. J. A. Millar: Do you mind reading the memo, on the corner of the letter? Witness read tho memo.—"Kindly return this after you have perused it and showri.it Mr. Copping'and the secretary." Mr. Mjllar: How did this letter become the. property of the "Stratford Evening Post??—" The letter itself says: 'You may make use of this privately with the manager and directors.' "' That was in tho letter from Mr. Symes to Mr. M'Cluggagc?—"Yes." Why was .not the memo, in the corner carried out?—"lf anyone had asked mo I should have said the letter could be shown to the directors. That was my impression. I showed it to the solicitor of the company." And the solicitor retained it notwithstanding the memo, in the corner ?—"Yes. I pointed , out to him that it had to be returned to M'Cluggage and he said he would see to that."

Was it returned to Mr. M'Cluggage ?-*- "Evidently not." Do you think any honourable man would retain a letter with that memo?—" That is not my business." When the. directors had been told, should it not have been returned?— "Either the letter should have been returned or Mr. M'Cluggage to and his permission obtained to keep it.". That was not done so far as you know?—'lt was not." Mr. Massey: Was the ■ interview with the Minister prior to the election of 1905? —"Yes." What year was the "Stratford Post" started ?-"1904." ' ■- What was its attitude politically then? —'if was-an independent paper." "Independent," you know, has a somewhat comprehensive meaning. Had it_ Opposition or Government leanings?—" The paper was freehold. I think the cause of the company being floated was to advocate a freehold policy." Would you take it to be an independent paper now with Government leanings?—"l cannot say. I have not seen it sufficiently ■ since I left Stratford." A Solicitor Consulted. To Mr. Allen: A separate company was formed to purchase tho two papers. The "Egmont Post" was strongly Government for some time before it ceased publican tion. ' ." . ' Sir Joseph Ward: Yet it was not on the list. Witness further stated that the "Egniont Post" had changed its politics. The "Egmoht Settler" was a . Government paper, and was on the list. Mr. V. H. Reed: The position is that Mr. Syines insisted upon a condition that the paper should support him before he would support the paper's application, and the paper refused the condition, and made the application on its own account. Mr..Myers: There was no reply to Mr. Symes's letter. • Witness further stated to Mr. Reed that he'received Mr. Symes's letter trora Mr. M'Cluggage by post. He thought he gave it to..the solicitor of the company, when he. returned. Mr. Skerrett: Do you know that when the letter was returned from Wellington it was submitted to a solicitor for the purposes of ascertaining whether it was an offence against the Corrupt Practices Act?—"l have heard that since 1 came to Wellington. I do not know what was done." Sir Joseph Ward: Did you give the letter to Mr. Jennings to give to me? — "No." The Minister's Position. At this point the question was raised whether it was suggested by Mr. Myers that Sir Joseph Ward saw the letter. Mr. Myers: No. The questions werß put in the ordinary course without a view o£ making any insinuations at all. This. is an inquiry, and full inquiry should be made. There seems to be an idea in some quarters that every question contains some insinuation against someone. Sir Joseph Ward: This is a charge against Mr. Symes of having done something. In the course of the evidence a statement is made suggesting that I, as Minister -in charge of the Advertising Department, and with cognisauce of this letter, did something I ought not to have done. I may say I think Mr. Myers is doing his duty in asking the questions. Mr. Myers: The Government were right in giving the advertising to tho paper, and the charge is that Mr. Symes was wrong in sending tho letter. That is tho insinuation. Sir Joseph Ward: It is quite clear that if tho facts were- different from what they were, 1 would be charged with collusion" with Mr. Symes. The chairman (Mr. Jlanan): Thoro is no evidence of any collusion. Mr. Hoed: There is no insinuation made. Mr. Skerrett: If the charge is against Mr. Symes of sending the letter to Mr. M'Cluggagc, it was irrelevant to ask if the letter was sent to Sir Joseph Ward, or if lie knew of it.

Return of Advertising. , Tho Prime Minister put in the followI ing return of amounts paid to the Stratford "Evening Post" for Government advertisements during tho undermentioned years (ending March 31):—1896, £2 3s. Cd.; "Egmont Post"; 1897, £10 Is., "Egmont Post"; 1901, £&S 4s. lid., "Egmont Post"; 1902, .£35 18s. 6d., "EgmontPost"; 1903, .£97 135., "Egmont Post"; 1901, .£4l 7s. dd.j "Egmout Post"; 1304, £<& Bs. Cd., Stratford "Evening Post"; 1905, £7 7s, "Egmont Post , ?; 1905, .£lO4 12s. 3d., Stratford "Evening Post"; 1909, ,£IOG 15s. 3d., Stratford "Evening Post"; 1910, ,£73 3s. 3d., Stratford "Evening Post." Note: This paper was published as the "Egmont Post" up to July 17, 1903, on which date its name was changed to the Stratford "Evening Post." Return of amounts paid to the "Egmont Settler," Stratford, for Government advertisements during the undermentioned years (ending March 31):—1896, .£29 18s. 3d.; 1897, .£B2 Is. 6d.; 1901, ,£74 14s. 9d.; 1902, ,£79 Bs. 3d.; 1903, .£lls 12s. Cd.; 1904, dE3I 4s. Bd., Tho "Egmont Settler" ceased publication and was incorporated with tho Stratford "Evening Post" on October 31, 1903. A Question of Relevancy, Some discussion ensued in the committee as to how the private letter from Mr. Symes to Mr. M'Cluggage had been made public. The Government members on tho committee thought inquiry should be made. The Opposition members held that it was quite immaterial to the charge, Mr. Symes not having- disputed the authorship- of tho letter. Mr. Massey pointed out that Mr. M'Cluggage was a director pi the paper, and the letter was no doubt addressed to him in that capacity. Sir Joseph Ward said they shouldknow why that letter was not returned to its owner. The chairman ruled that the witness should not be recalled in connection with this matter. . A. E. Copping (called by Six Joseph Ward) said he was connected with the Stratford "Post" in 1905; He was and still is the representative of the Press Association. ■ He had sent a short Press Association telegram about the Hine reception, but not the' long telegram that appeared in the morning papers under the Press Association heading. He was not present Dn the occasion of Mr. Hine's arrival. Sir Joseph. Ward having mentioned something about the inadvisability- of an organisation of that kind being used for party -purposes, Mr. Myers pointed out ■ that that was bringing in the Press Association, which was not represented at the inquiry. ■ - The chairman: I hope, Sir Joseph, you won't pursue that line of argument further. Witness added that the Press Association heading might have been put over the message by mistake. Sometimes this heading got in by mistake. Mr._Myers: Did you send the message to tho "New Zealand Times," which stated - that Mr. Hine wae received by three men and a man with a grievance? Witness: No. Statontent by Mr. Major. C. E. Major stated that he had no connection with charge No. 2, in which, it was . alleged that .he was associated with Sj-mes in a sale of land, with A. Bayly as one of the parties. The transaction was with Frederick Bayly. It, was agreed to take evidence on charges No. 1 and No. 2 to-morrow. The committee rose at 1 o'clock.