MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 969, 9 November 1910, Page 8

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS.

MR, .SYMES .GIVES-EVIDENCE." KEEN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY .'MR. MYERS. ; ' "THE KEY OF THE FOSjfION." OPINIONS ON PRESENTS T@ 'MEMBERS.

There were further sittings of the Hine- Allegations Committee' yesterday, .when the charges made against' Messrs. Major and Synies were again the sub-. ' iject of. inquiry. Mr. Myers represented •Mr. Hine, and Mr. Skerrett, K.C., with ihrra Mr. Sharp, appeared for both Messrs. Symes and Major. .Mr. Fred'Bayly,' sheepfarmer, living near Stratford, said he., formerly owned B-'property at Toko. This was the property- sold to the Government through Mr. Major. It was now known' as the Clandon Estate. He paid Mr. Major : a commission of £300. The property Mnay Lave been one month or three months in Major's bands before it was offered to the Government. He could : not say whether Mr. Major offered it vprivately. The estate was sold to the Government at £12 10s. per acre. ; ; To Mr. Skerrett: So far as witness I •knew, the Government was the only one •the property was offered to by Mr. Major. . Mr. Skerrett: Have you any informa,tion as to its being hawked about? — •No.Mr. Myers: Was that phrase 'ever nsed? Mr. Skerrett: No, I don't' say the phrase, was used, but there was a. suggestion of it. '■■..:•• To Sir Joseph Ward: I suggest ■< to Mr. Major that probably- the Government would purchase the property. I did not pay anything except what' I >paid to Mr. Major. I made no direct representations to any member of the ,then Government nor to any member of .the then Land Purchase Board. ...Mr. Massey: Was. Mr. Major a member of the House at that time?— Yes. The chairman: Did you place this property in. the hands of Mr. Major as D land agent?— Yes, as a land agent. • Did you consider you would have to .pay for-the services rendered?—l did, certainly. -.' Did the fact of Mr. Major being a member of Parliament weigh with you in placing the matter in his hands?— : No, I don't think I thought about'it. To Mr. Myers: Witness admitted that the property was much nearer Strat■ford than Hawera, and that there were land agents doing business in Strafe ford, including Mr. Newton King.. To Mr. Buchanan: He had previously—about, twenty-five ■ years ago—em(ployed Mr. Major, in connection with a iproperty at Manaia. : To-Sir Joseph Ward: The property ■,w'as now. worth considerably more than '.the Government gave for it.' It was worth-£ls to £18, and some of it £20 an acre; : ' . . , . The' chairman: Did the : Government . receive this property at a, price less .'ihan' v other people .could have got it for ?- : --I. .only put. .'the one price on it. 'The chairman: There were no special Instructions to ' sell to any particular iperson or body ?—No... Mr. Massey: They got it at the price you asked?— Yes. ; The chairman at this stage intimated that it had been noticed by hrmfielf and by members'of the committee ;«a± witnesses had been writing to' the referring to their evidence. -This practice was, he added, altogether irregular, and would constitute, if brought 'before the House, a breach of privilege. .He intimated tbat it was undesirable |that_ witnesses should make \ any' communication to the press regarding their ..evidence,.or deal'with.their evidence.in |a public way. The whole case was sub $nnice. ;'■■ Mr. Synies Gives Evidence. , Mr. Skerrett called Mr. W. Symes, Bow residing in the King Country. Witness said he had resided in Strat.ford for about 14 years until last year. Qkrr the last 12 years his business was .that' of a land,- insurance and general ißgent. Until the election: of 1908 for 12 years ho had been a memiber of Parliament. He was one of the ivory, first of the West Coast lessees— m 1874. He was a lessee individually arid in conjunction, with his brother. The lessees got the land after the Natives returned from imprisonment at Dunedin. The. leases had to go before '*T&e Native Lands Frauds Commissioner,", and had ,-to bear an endorsement that the rents were to he paid in ' coin. Some time after this it was found necessary to introduce legislation in connection with the leases, and a commission of inmriry was conducted by iSir Wm. Fox. The position was that : the leases were informal, and that the settlers were practically squatters on the land. They appealed to the Government, and legislation ensued. •. The leases were placed in the hands of the Public Trustee. The settlers were' empowered to surrender their leases, and were told that new leases would be assued. _ The matter, of rent and expenses incurred was decided by arbitration in 1889. In order to uplift the awards they had to pay all the fees of They then applied for their leases in terms of the. award. There were two leases signed. After that the Native owners lodged a caveat against any further dealings with the leases. 'The' matter was to come before the Supreme Court, and ; Mr. Geo. Hutchison moved that the ;matter go to-the Appeal Court direct. jThe Appeal Court held that the whole : of the proceedings were ultra vires.

An Interview with Mr. Ballance. . The Government was then approached to give the lessees some assistance, and ! a Suspension Act" locking everything up was passed. Nothing having been done foT some time Parliament was petitioned without result. A further petition was presented with the' same result. Nothing was done until 1892. (Witness had been greatly concerned in all these matters. In 1892 Mr. Ballance was Premier. The lessees knew that witness and Mr. Ballnnco were very great friends, and asked if witness could do any good if ho went to Wellington. He replied he was going •m any case. Ho saw Mr. Ballance, and told him the whole story Mr. Ballance said it was the- intention of the Government to ' settle the matter, and asked him to see the Public Trustee, Mr. Warburton, who was preparing a Bill on the subject. Mr.-Ballanco left witness to fight out his own case with Mr. Warburton. He did this, spending a great deal of time over it. The result was the West Coast Settlement Act, 1892. Witness paid all his own expenses on that occasion. He was not then a member of Parliament. Afterwards the rents were reduced. Application was made to the Public Trustee to know what rents had t': bo paid. He said the rates would b? paid in' accordance' with the nw.r!\i. Thr.t was in 1539. Witness . co'iliiwd ;o my bis rent for two years under tbe instructions' from the Public Trusii'i •—i.e., at the- lesser award. Subsequently the Public Trustee asked for

the" back rent at. the higher rate/ Witness declined to pay, and .writs were issued. Ho fought the matter in the Supremo Court, and he won both cases. These were test cases in connection withthe rent and ho, bore his own expenses over and above the costs allowed by the Public Trustee. • Ho had therefore closely investigated the whole matter before ,he was a member of Parliament. When witness was in Parliament" one of the lessees who had been dining well one night asked him a question in connection with the petition. Witness thought he was referring.to. some pe-. tition asking that the' lessees' should have the right, to .purchase Jhoir holdings. Some of the,, lessees asked him if be would present petitions.' - Against the Petition. He replied: "No. If you ask me as your, representative I will do so, but I am against the petition because I don't consider you are-entitled to it and I shall not help' you,'in any way. 'If you can get any other member I should advise you to. take the petition to him." The result, was they never presented any petitions, asking for their right to acquire their,holdings,, through me. I thought .this lessee was referring to these petitions. /1 said:-"No.- I have never presented them." Another lessee thought I had. been. rather .curt with this man. and said so when we got outside. . I said I did not mean that at all. He said the lessee was referring to the petition trying to get a refund of the arbitration costs. I said I was very sorry and would apologise. Witness added it was understood that Mr. Geo. Hutchison had presented petitions regarding the arbitration costs nearly every year, but when witness came down to Wellington and inquired during the recess he found no petition had been presented for years and no one could tell him anything until'he got the clerk of the Native Affairs Committee. After a lot of trouble the old petition was, found. '..Witness, then drafted a petition and got it typed. He sent it to Mr. Newman, of Waverley, It was signed by Mr: Geo." Johnston and 16 others, and returned to witness. There' 1 were 29 lessees entitled' to sign, not 100 as stated by ■ Mr. Lysaght. _ Witness was counting firms as individuals. The petition was presented in 1905, he thought: He then got up. all the evidence he .could to, establish a case before the Petitions Committee. The committee was not satisfied. Mr. Buddo was -chairman of that committee. Witness then found he had.omitted to put one or two facts before the committee. He moved in tho House, that the matter be referred back to the committee. This was agreed to, and he gave the committee the additional facts. • The committee then sent in a favourable, report. A great number, of the members, voluntarily assisted witness to get the petition referred back because the Native Minister (the Hon. Mr. Carroll) was opposed to it. Witness, at Mr. Seddon's request, tendered him all the evidence he had given before' the committee, and explained the whole matter to him. Mr. Seddon said if the case had been so put, witness and -the others must have had redress long before. A vote of £2000 was then put on the Supplementary Estimates,to defray.tho expenses, that had been incurred in connection 'with the arbitration. Witness had no understanding ' with the petitioners for payment. After the session had closed witness wrote to Johnston and told him the result. Then some of the,lessees wrote asking him how they were to get' their money. Others wrote asking why they had been omitted from the'petition. They asked witness to give them what information he could and to make claims on their behalf. He would Expect to be Paid. To those of them who were not his constituents he wrote and told them that he was in business, that he had got the money on the Estimates as a member of Parliament, but if they now wanted assistance they could go to-their own member. ' He,could not afford, to give them his time collecting their accounts, and that if they wanted him to collect their amounts he would expect to be paid in his business capacity. Unfortunately, when he left Stratford he had burnt all these letters. He had made a bonfire of all his political correspondence. He had said that was the last he was going to 'have to do with anything of that sort, and he had burnt everything, practically, that had to do with politics, except a few letters that had escaped burning—how he did not know, because he intended'to burn everything. The result was that he made out their claims as ho knew the amounts owing. Witness told them what evidence they had to produce, and they all got paid. Everyone that witness v had done this work for outside his constituency— except Lysaght—paid him his commission of 5 per.cent. That was half the; ordinary: commission. He did not chargo his own constituents any commission. He subsequently presented another petition from F. B. Lysaght, G. Gower, Alf. Hobbs, and Fred. Taylor. A further sum was placed on the ■Estimates for these. Witness collected the money for some of them at their request. Witness produced, some letters in connection with tho Lysaght matter. One of these was from Mr. Moore, one of the executors in the.Lysaght estate. This letter mentioned that Caplin had been instructed to ; inquire, into the claims; • but> he had - afterwards : stopped him.

In reference to the concluding paragraph in the account presented to Lysaght referring to "preparing petition, attending before the Petitions Committee, and giving evidence at length on two occasions," he said that was put there to show, that .on a former occasion, lessees had to employ a solicitor to prepare tho petition for them and that: they also paid lessees to come to Wellington and givo evidence on their behalf. Ho wished in that account to press upon Lysaght that-oh •the latter occasion, they were saved all those expenses and all he (Mr. Symes)_ was asking was the ordinary commission for collection. He felt entitled to chargo them half the ordinary commission for collecting. The letter of April 20, 1906, which he had sent to Lysaght asking for the cost of collecting his claim meant that the money had actually been received before any claim was made for commission. The claim was a just one and had nothing to do with presenting or prosecuting tho_ petition in any way. The charge was limited to the collection. "The Key of the Position." Mr. Skerrett: I want vou to refer to your letter of July 28, 1906, to Mr. B. Lysaght: "Do not forget that your own claim is not yet paid, neither is that of your brother, Mr. F. Lysaght, and I hold the key of tho position, I alono have all the. information and at tho

proper time shall know how to use it. You have treated me with discourtesy, but probably you cannot help- it. All the other lessees to whom I sent a claim have paid cheerfully. I am preparing a petition for those lessees who did not sign the last one, for presentation this session; bnt I will take good care that your un'gentlomauly conduct shall bo rewarded by keeping your name off, also that of your brother." What did you mean by saying you held tho key of the position?—l had, so far as I know, all the information. I am certain no other lessee had it. Was it meant as a threat to withhold your influence as a member of Parliament towards the recovery of tho money to which he was entitled? Mr. Myers objected that these were leading questions. Mr. Synies replied that he considered he had been treated rather badly. Mr. Skerrett: Yes, but it has been suggested that the expression "I hold the key of tho position" refers to your position, as a member of Parliament? — "It had nothing to do with that. It was not as a member of .Parliament I had the information. I had information that would enable tho committee to which tho petitions were, presented to come to a decision because no evidence was taken by any' of the committees." Y T es, but don't you see tho letter is dated July 28, 1906, after the principle of these claims had been admitted by Parliament, and you had information that would enable you to prove it to tho Treasury? Mr. Myers again objected that counsel was leading witness. "A Pretty Difficult Task." "Mr. Fraser: Wo want Mr. Symes's view of the matter, not Mr. Skerrett's. The chairman (Mr. Hauan) said tho questions were taking rather a leading form. Further replying, to Mr. Skerrett, witness stated that neither Mr. F. D. Lysaght nor Mr. B. Lysaght were constituents of his. Mr. Skerrett then referred to the correspondence that passed between Mr. Symes and Messrs. Haddow and Hutchison. Ho asked witness if this took ■ place before or after Parliament had recommended a refund should be , granted. Mr. Symes: Months afterwards; very nearly a year after. Do you know what you did in point of. fact towards the collection of these moneys?—"l did nothing until I received the letter from Messrs. Haddow and Hutchison, and no one was more surprised than myself that Mr. Hutchison of all men should ask me to collect money for him. I thought it must be a pretty difficult task when Mr. Hutchison could not collect his own money." What did you do so far as the Government was concerned?—"l wrote asking for. . ." . . Did you write once or more? —"It might bo'once or more than once. I wrote asking for particulars how the matter stood." .. Did you write as agent, for Mr. Hutchison or not? —"Certainly ' I would write as agent for Mr. Hutchison." Your letter was forwarded on behalf of Messrs. Hutchison and Haddow?— "Yes." At this stage, Mr. Skerrett asked that Mr. Symes's letter should be produced. "I want to make it quite clear that in any communication with respect to Messrs. . Hutchison and Haddow's claims," he added, "you wrote as agent for Hutchison and Haddow." Witness: That is so. Never Interviewed any Minister. Do you remember if you interviewed any Minister? —"No, never once. Of that I am positive." • ' The matter was treated by you as purely a business transaction? —"Purely business." And your communication would be; purely formal?—'.' Yes." .. Mr. Skerrett put-in a.number of letters received by Mr. Symes from West Coast lessees with a view of showing that the correspondence'was of an ordinary business character. Questioned as to a number of the correspondents Mr. Symes stated that they were not. constituents. Mr. Skerrett read a letter from Mr. Gower, dated August 6. "That," he said, "is tho letter to which you replied stating that you would supply the information." Mr. Symes: "Upon a payment of £20." Explaining his reason for asking this sum, Mr. Symes stated that this man had received his refund. He did not feel called upon' to, give all the information without being paid. Mr. Gower was a constituent, but that had nothing whatever to do with witness's Parliamentary duties. . Mr. Skerrett: Did you ask Mr. S. Gower for the payment of £5 or any other sum by way of commission?—"l have never asked him for one shilling commission in my, life." I want .to ask you a few questions relating to tho sale of Alf Bayly's property to the Government. What was your first.connection with that matter? —"My first and .only connection was when the settlers who were milking under agreement with Mr. Bayly met me in Stratford and told me that their agreements with Mr. Bayly would shortly expire, and that Mr. Bayly had told them that it was not his intention to renew tho agreements. Mr. Bayly's intention was to sell the cattle and restock with sheep. . The settlers told me they did not want to leave if they could possibly help it, and they would like the estate acquired under the Land for Settlement Act. Letter to Prime Minister. "I advised them to proceed by way of petition, and said, the first thing was to ascertain if Mr. Bayly was will'ing to sell, and at what price." Witness said the next thing was that a petition signed by forty or more persons was presented to him. He thereupon rang up Mr. Bayly, and told him of this, and obtained particulars about the property from him. When he returned to Wellington he wrote a letter setting forth these particulars, and sent it with, and in support of, the petition to the then Prime Minister, the Hon. W. Hall-Jones. Ho got a formal acknowledgment and wrote no more letters in connection with the matter. Neither did he interview a member of tho Ministry nor a member of the Land Purchase Board. Mr. Skerrett: In forwarding the petition, were you in any sonse acting as agent for Mr. A. Bayly?—"No." Was there any understanding to receive a commission from Mr. Bayly if the property was sold ?—"There was no understanding. . I have never acted as his agent'or spoken to him in connection with the matter except through the telephone." • All you did was to write one letter in presenting the petition. You had no interviews with any Minister or any head of Department?—"No, none." What was the next step?— Witness replied that he received a telegram from Mr. Barron, stating that the Land Purchase Board would inspect the property, and asking him to accompany them. He drove Mr. Barron out to tho property, but did not talk of it. No mention was made of the property by tho Land Purchase Board, Alf. Bayly, or witness in Mr. Barron's presence. Mr. Skerrett: There was never any arrangement for tho payment of commission? —"I never was }\is agent, and no arrangement was over made." What was the ordinary rate of commission?—" Two and a half per cent." Present for Election Expenses. Whore did you first hear that the property had been purchased ? Mr. Symes f Some' time afterwards. Ono morning I was going to interview my bank manager, and met Alf. Bayly at the door uf the bank. Mr. Bayly said, "The Government have taken my place. They didn't givo me what I

asked for it. I asked £11 10s. per acre, and they gave me £11, and I have accepted that." Mr. Bayly added: "I have to thank you for the sale of it, and it has como at a very opportune moment, as I have just nea'rly completed the purchase of a property near Wangnui, and I want every shilling to complete the purchase." Ho thanked me, and I said, "Oh, that is all right." Mr. Bayly then said, "I would like to show you that I appreciate it," and said he wanted mo to accept something for the trouble. I,replied: "I didn't act for you. I was not your agent. Thereloro I decline anything by way of commission in connection with the sale of the estate." Mr. Bayly said: "Well, I do not want people working for me for nothing." I said, "I did not work tor you. Mr. Bayly persisted in saying it was through witness the sale was brought about, and said ho wanted to Si,™ Mr Symes a p.n. for £300. What for? queried Mr. Symes. "You were not my agent. You won't take anything as my agent," rejoined Mr. Bayly ."Will you take £300 from me towards your election expenses?" Witness replied that he would not oven take that, and Mr.. Bayly said he would be very hurt if he did not. Bayly added that if Mr. Symes did not take it, tho reason would be because he had oftered a p.n. instead of the cash. iou know such a thing could never enter my head," said Mr. Symes. "I ask you to accept .this as a present from mo towards the election expenses," rejoined Mr. Bayly, "and if you don't take it I shall be very much, hurt." I finally accepted it," Mr. Symes informed the committee. "I considered it a very handsome present—something I had never earned or looked for." Mr. Bayly paid the stamp duty, and put tho p.n. in Mr. Symes's hand. The Sole Interference. Mr. Skerrett: In. whose handwriting was the p.n.?—"l should say in Mi\ Bayly's."' I understand this was a present voluntarily given to assist in connection with'your election and other expenses' —"Yes." It was voluntarily given without any suggestion by you?—" Yes." . Your sole interference in connection with the sale of the property to the -Government consisted in forwarding the petition?—" That is the only thing." , May I take it that this sum of £300 and the amounts which have beeh mentioned in connection with the West Coast Native reserves are the solo moneys received by you in connection with any matter affecting the Government? —"Yes." . I understood you to say you had no arrangement, express .or otherwise, with tho lessees to receive any commission of any sort or kind until after tho money had been appropriated by Parliament?—" Precisely." ' The arrangement under which you received commission was a commission for collecting money from the Treasury. —"That is so." And made after the money had been appropriated by Parliament?—" That is so." Mr. Myers Cross-Examines. Mr. Myers: May we take it that when j'ou wrote to Mr: Hall-Jones you were acting solely as a member of .Parliament?—" Yes." In the interests of the district?— "Y r es." The' purchaso was not duo to your' influence?—" No." Why did you accept the £300, then? —"I did not accept anything in regard to the sale." Mr. Bayly wished you to take the £300 becauso it was due to your influence that tho Government purchased the estate: If that was not so, why did you take the £300?—" I did'not claim anything in connection .with the sale of tho property. I did not know what was in Mr. Bayly's mind." But I put it to you that you did know on your own, evidence? —"I accepted it as a payment from Mr. Bayly at his special invitation—not in regard to the sale of the property." Mr. Bayly said he had to thank you for tho sale?—"l told him that he-had not." , Then, why did you take the £300, seeing that it was for that .reason that he offered it to you?—" Not in regard to the sale of the land. Mr..Bayly said that if I did not take it he would be very much hurt and offended." What did you think Mr. Bayly meant when he said, "I have to thank you for the sale"? —"I don't know." Very well, I will leave it, at that. Now, this payment was made in 1906. Was there an election in that year?— "No; but there was one the previous year." "Not the Right Colour." Turning to other transactions, Mr. Myers read letters with a view to showing that politics had crept in. In one, dated August 11, 1905, from Mr. Newlya to Mr. Symes, this passage occurred :— "Some (of the lessees) I have spoken to seem to be afraid that they are not the right colour, which personally I think is a great mistake." In a letter dated October 15, 1905, Mr. Nowlyn said that all who had taken i, prominent part were Government men, and he could not see how the Government could do other than give effect to the report. •Mr. Symes said he could not offer am opinion what the expressions meant. Mr; Myers also read a letter from Mr. Symes to Messrs. Hutchison and Haddow, in which he said:— "I know that I can get these claims sottled or otherwise, but if all the petitioners are going to treat me as your firm proposes it will be-otherwise." "What did you mean by that?" queried Mr. Myers. Mr. Symes: I had tho information, and I would not do anything to help them through the information I had in my possession., ' What do the words, "or otherwise" mean? —"That I would not do anything to help them." DonH you think now this was an unfortunate one?—" Probably." Don't you think the inference was the influence you could bring to bear ?— "No." Read the letter.—Mr. Symes did so, but said he could not find that inference. Why did you go on to say, "I am not using this as a threat" ?—"Becauso was not." What were you using it as?—"l was using it in self-defence." Did not Hutchison and Haddow write to you primarily as a member of Parliament, as the member for the district in which these lands were situated'— "No." You said you would not lift a hand under £20 each.—"l think it was worth that." You said it would be difficult to collect the money?—"l meant that when Mr. Hutchison could not collect the money himself it must be difficult to collect." Do you seriously mean that? Did you not mean, in conjunction with this letter, that it was a difficult matter because of somo other reason'— "No." . In a letter you wrote to Mr. Lysaght you said that unless his father's estate met tho claim you would keep his name and his brother's name off the second petition. Were you writing as a member of Parliament?—" No. The petition was not being prepared, and he was not a constituent of mine. I meant I would not send the petition to him; but I did." If you had been asked by Mr. Bryan Lysaght to have presented a petition would you have done it?—"l would have referred him to the member for his district. He was not a constituent of mine." And would you havo withhold information you possessed as.you threatened to?—"I daresay I would."

You seriously mean that? —"I did not acquire the information as a member of Parliament." Was it Proper? Did you not act in a previous petition, and hear everything tbat went on? —"I gave everything that went on." You were one of the lessees. You presented a petition signed by yourself and others?—" Yes." Was it proper for you to present the petition?—"l think so." Don't you know of a Standing Order that a member cannot present a petition for himself?—" No." You don't know that after being twelve years in Parliament ?—"No." You spoke in the House and asked that the petition bo referred back to the committee?—" Yes." A petition in which you were pecuniarily interested?—" Yes, if you put it in that way. I was not thinking of myself, but the others." Presents to Members. Y'ou spoke of a present which was to have been given to several members. Who were they?—" Several of them are dead." Mr. Hanan ruled this question out of order, and Mr. Myers said he had no desiro to press it. He asked witness, however, if he thought it was proper presents should be given to' members of Parliament in this way. Mr. Synies: I think there is nothing wrong in doing so. I should think nothing of giving a fellow-member a present. Presents intended for getting petitions through Parliament?—"lt was not intended for anything of the sort." That is, who had helped you to get the matter referred back. Do you think it proper?—"l think thero was nothing improper in what I said there." May I take it then that you see nothing improper in giving presents to members or members taking them for services rendered members who had prominently helped in getting the matter through?—" Mr. Gower understood. It was not intended for help. I could see no harm in what was suggested."' Were you a land agent in 1905?— "Yes." Do you know you are on the Patea roll for that year as a farmer?—" Very likely I had been on the roll for a great many years without it being altered." Witness also stated that he know the names of the Gowcrs and others who had been mentioned were on the Patea roll for tho same year. Explaining a Bill. You say thoro was no arrangement with petitioners for commission. Do you deny that you accepted money from some of these people for doing work in Parliament?—"l do." Will you explain the meaning of your bill to the executors of the Lysaght Estate, in whioh you refer to attending before' the Petitions Committee and giving evidence?— Witness said that was'to show he was doing that for nothing and on previous occasions it had to bo paid for. But you don't show that?—"lt is probably my bad way of putting it." It ie an unfortunate way, is it not? —"Probably." Would you mind explaining your letter to Mr. Haddow in which you said" it 'would be quite useless Mr. Hutchison taking any steps on his own account?—"l understood the vote was passed. There was a dispute between Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Dury over the nutter." Witness represented Mr. Hutchison. Replying to Sir Joseph Ward witness stated that ho had not been appointed, and had not acted as a Government agent, to purchase or secure estates. He had not.received any payment from the Government in connection with land sales, either directly or indirectly through the Land Purchase Board. He had' not informed anyone connected n;ith the Government that ho was being paid for services to the lessees. ' The £2000 placed on the Estimates to , compensate the lessees ■ was not sufficient for this purpose. No exception had been taken by any member of the House (Government' or Opposition) to that vote. "What Did You Mean?" Sir Joseph Ward:, What did you mean to convey, in the letter to Lysaght, by tho statement that you "held the key of the position" ?— "Simply that I held all tho information in the matter. If I had not, they would not have asked me to help." Did you mean to convey that you had any influence in connection with the vote? —"No." Do you think you could have influenced the vote?—" No." Witness added that'he did not acquaint any member of the Government that he had any arrangement to get money. Regarding the sale of A, Bayly's property he would have charged 2£ per cent, (a commission of £525) if he had acted as a private land agent. He had not made any suggestion to the Government as to tho effect of "the right colour." Is there anything uncommon, in members of one side supporting their own party?—"lt is usual rather than unv usual." Have you received any commission, jointly or with any other person, Mr. Major-for example?—"No, I ha-ro had no business connection with Mr. Major in my life." Witness further stated that 'ho had not always been a supporter of -fhe Government during his last session, and had sometimes given adverse criticism. At this stage the Committee adjourned for lunch, and met again at 5.30 p.m., after the House rose, in the Prime Minister's room. The "Present" Again. Is Newlyn a respectable settler?— "Yes." Mr.'Massey: Did I hear you say you had never been Government Whip?— "That is so." Are you quite sure you never acted as Government Whip?—" Never for ono moment." . j You never went round and arranged pairs?—" Never." Think again?—" Never- Such a thing was never offered me, and if it was I would never have accepted it." I think you acted temporarily and for a limited period when the Government Whip was ill? —"Never." Were the Baylys supporters of yours? —"Mr. Alf. Bayly was at one time." Is he tho man from whom the land was purchased?—"Y'es." Is it usual for men who take an active interest in politics to make such presents?—"l cannot say." Was he an active supporter of yours? —"He was at one election." Which election was tbat?—"l don't know whether it was in 1896 or the following one." • Heavy Election Expenses. What did your election expenses amount to? —"I cannot say from memory." Wore they much over £300?—"leannot say." Are you sure it was over £300?—" I cannot say at this period. My election expenses were very heavy. It was a large district." Was tho amount over £200?—" Yes, it would be." Do you know tho limit by law is £200?—" I know the limit, but your own personal expenses are not included in election expenses." Mr. Massey: I think they are. Witness: Advertising and halls would cost about £200. Mr. Massey: You remember writing M'Cluggago about the Government advertising ?—"Yes." Y'ou wrote to him as a director of the paper?—" No." Was he not at that time a director? —"I do not know. I was not aware of the fact that he was a director when I wrote to him. I knew he was a shareholder."

If lie was a director at the time you wrote to him, would your letter not to' a certain extent be official?—" Yes." Mr. Buchanan asked witness some questions about his having acted as Government Whip, and' stated that he recollected tho circumstances, when Sir Joseph "Ward objected to Mr. Buchanan making a statement. Mr. Buchanan, he said, was not a witness. Mr. Buchanan: If I tell you I recollect distinctly the place and one of the Government side of the House telling me that it had been arranged you were to act as Whip for a time, would you say the information was incorrect?— "Yes." Sir Joseph Ward: Are you the one who suggested that question'? Mr. Massey: I don't think the Premier should say that. Mr. Hino did not suggest that he was Whip. Sir Joseph Ward: I wished to know who suggested the question to Mr. Myers. Mr. Myers (emphatioally): The Prime Minister has no right to ask. who suggests questions to me. A question and a suggestion are quite different things. I asked the question and accepted the answer. For Kindly Feeling. To Mr. Skerrett: Witness said he had never heard questioned the justico of the recommendation of the Committee of tho House about reimbursing the lessees the money paid by them to uplift tho award, and he did not doubt the justice of it himself. The presents that it was suggested should be,given to members who helped to to get this thing put through the House were not to be of aiiy intrinsic value.. He thought it simply meant a pipe or something of that sort. Tho chairman: Don yoii think a person would give a present of £300 to another for nothing—out of love?—"It has been done." For kindly feeling towards you?— "Yes. . Mr. Bayly and myself were like brothers. v ln fact, I knew Alf. Bayly better than I knew some of my . own brothers. We hud had • all sorts of dealings together. I had bought land from him; we had helped each other to muster; we helped each other to shear." To Sir Joseph Ward: No one had any authority to make use of the confidential letter ho had written to M'Cluggage regarding the newspaper. Ho did not intend it to be passed on. To Mr. Massey: He considered it was worth 10 per cent, to collect money oven from tho Government. He would treat the matter as if he were collecting from a private individual. This concluded the Symes case, and Mr. Symes, before leaving, thanked the committee for their consideration in agreeing to sit in the evening, to . enable him to conclude his evidence, so that he could return to his home on the following day. The committee then adjourned. Mr. Myers has intimated that he will call eight or nine witnesses in the cases against Mr. Kaihau. rJfc OS€ P h Ward wi!l ca 'l Sir George Clifford and the Hon. Dr. Findlay to give evidence on the charge against the Government in connection with the Flaxbourne Estate.