MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 970, 10 November 1910, Page 6

MR. HINE'S ALLEGATIONS

THE CASE AGAINST M.B. SYMES. POLITICAL. PROPRIETY; SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS! ANSWERS. CHARGES'AGAINST IR. KAIHAU.

The committee set up to inquire into the charges made by Mr. J. B. Hine, M.P., against certain past members and a present member of the House, met again' yesterday morning. Mr. Myers appeared for Mr. Hine, and Mr. Skerrott, K.C., for Sir. Synies. i- Mr. Jennings, M.P. for Taumarunui, was called in connection with points raised rduring the hearing of the charges against Mr. Symes. . ." ■ '' ■. Mr Symes's Letter. W.T. Jennings stated that in 1905 he was member for Egmont, which included • the suburbs of Stratford.. That was .the' reason ..why.he arranged an interview for Mr. AVhitlock, manager, of the Stratford "Evening Post,"' with. Sir Joseph Ward, in connection with Government advertising in the paper. .A To Sir. Joseph Ward: Witness stated that, as far as his memory or his memo, note-book served him, he had not seen the letter written by Mr. Symes to Mr. ' M'Cluggage. . If Mr. Whitlock said he lad shown him the letter he would not deny it, but he did not recollect it. He was quite positive that he did not show .the letter to Sir Joseph Ward. . If the 'letter had been handed, to him he would not have used it, in view of the fact.that the,, letter was marked: private. He would not have allowed such a letter to be published. •'. He had used no influence forwards getting advertising for the "Stratford Post" beyond arranging the interview. ■.'.•■ , ; ' ■'■■-.' ■'- '. To Mr. Massey: The letter was marked, "Not for publication,"- but was not 'marked confidential.. It was. written to Mr. who was a director on -the''Tost." , '■■'•■■ Mr. jkjiirs: Do you think it proper for a member of Parliament to write a let-

'ter of that..kind to be. shown to the proprietor of the newspaper.?—"l' can only Bay I would not write, a' letter of that kind myself." Or make a threat of that kind?—"lf t irould not write the letter I-wonld not make a threat." ... • ... Further questioned by.Mr. Myers, witness stated that he did not think it was a right thing to use the letter. He agreed that it.was a 1 matter of opinion as to

ethics. Mr. Skerrett said this letter stood by < itself. There'was no suggestion that letters of this kind'were systematic. :. Wrong or Right? . The chairman (Mr. Hanan): Do you agree with the opinion of the Chief Justice" that charge i "is the reproduction of the babblement of an election contest/' and that, the person making the threat was not at that time a member of Parliament?—"l agree with that;" ■ Mr. ■ Massey: Was he not. a member of Parliament? ..'.,■•■ . Mr. Hanan: Assuming that he was a ■ member of Parliament, would you agree with the other .'pa,rt of ,the .statement?— "If he was a~ member.of Parliament at the time it.'would be wrong." Assuming he was not n member of Parliament at.the time? —"Then I presume he would.'purs Tie any course he saw fit to become a., member of. Parliament." (Laughter.) ;■ : .':•■.

Do you-,consider it-justified?—"No, in my opinion it is not justified. I have no "hesitation-in saying that." Do you .think it is in accord with political propriety and public interest that a member'of Parliament should, act as an ; sgent, offering property for sale to. the Government, on behalf o! the J. client?— "If a member of Parliament. is a solicitor he may.bo interested in disposing of land to the-Government. :Where are you going to draw the line. s ". .. . . , .

Do you, mind answering the- question more definitely? .Would you legislate against a .member, of Parliament acting as a land agent and offering property to the Government?—"lt would mean limiting the choice of those who may be members of Parliament if one's profession is to ba taken into consideration."

Would you approve of legislation of ench a type? ... ■ Mr. Jennings replied that the Land Purchase Board had been set up" free -of political control, and he could not see Ihow it could be influenced by the fact rthat the person offering, the property was ■a member .of Parliament.

> Political Propriety. Do you think that it is in accordance with political propriety and public interest that a.'member should receive commission for collecting money on behalf ,of persons who are not his constituents?— ."I would not do so myealf whether they were. constituents or not." ; '■; Mr. Massey stated that the date of the ■letter was' October i, 1905, and Parliament prorogued on October 13. Mr. Symes was, therefore a member of Parliament when hei wrote the letter. It was written: on Parliament paper, and dated front, the House of Representatives. :;'■•. . ; Mr. Massey further asked witness if.he was aware of a property that had been valued by the Government Valuer at ' JEBO being purchased at ,£l5O in the usual way shortly, afterwards? Witness said he had heard something. of it. . ■...'.•'.

The Hon. J. A. Millar: Was a. newspaper not attempting to take advantage by a veiled threat in asking a candidate on the eve of an election to use his power to gain Government advertising for it?— "At that time there were two.newspapers in Stratford, and I suppose, as a business' proposition, it wns right for rho 'Egmont Post , to attempt to get a share of' the Government advertising." Do you consider that a newspaper was ;not endeavouring to bring pressure to bear on a candidate if the request was made on the eva , of an election?—"lf-it was on the-eve of an election it would bear that construction. I do not see anything wrong in newspaper proprietors aeking members of Parliament to get them Government , advertising." Witness 'was fnrther examined by Mr. Millar, who. argned that, if it was wrong for a land agent to sell property to the Goyernmenf.it would be wrong for a solicitor to get procuration fees on dealings with Government Departments. Sir. Allen: You gave some evidence about thq ' Land Purchase Board. Are vou aware that the Minister instructs the board occasionally to negotiate ?—"Certainly." . . '

Might Have Some Influence. _ Is it not likely that a member of Parliament might have some influence with the Minister in instructing the board to negotiate ?—"Yes." Would it not be to the advantage of a leller to select a land agent who was a Member of Parliament rather than one who was riot?-"Quite possibly, but does that influence the Land Purchase Board?" Would you offer land to the Government ?—"Probably if I was a land agent I wonld." You would use your influence to get instructions to negotiate? Witness said he would not do that. Mr. Reed: Wonld you consider it a reasonable thing for a man to say he was not going to endeavour to do a paper a good turn until it did him a »ood turn?—"lt might be well to have expressed it, but not to put it on paper. (Laughter.) Any of us who have been through an election know there is a lot of give-and-take all round."The chairman: Babblement as they term Restrictions on Councillors. Mr. Biichnnan: Yoii have said that you did not see why a commission agent should not eell laid to ■ the • ■ Goverauneat for

payment. You are aware there are restrictions on . members of a local body doing business in which the local body-is concerned?—" Yes."

It has been found necessary to put these restrictions upon members of local bodies. Don't you think it necessary to prevent members of ■ Parliament getting into the same difficult position? Witness said he thought there was sufficient safeguard in the tact that the board had been placed beyond political control. You are aware that the members of this board are removable at will by the Government? You are also aware that the Minister for, Finance takes some part in the purchase of land by the Government ?—"Certainly he takes some part." . Do'you.. not think on reconsideration that • the , same- restrictions' should apply 'to members' of Parliament as" apply to members of local bodies?—" Speaking generally, yes; but with the safeguard of the Land Purchase Board I say the circumstances are somewhat -different." Mr. Skerrett observed that substantially the same disqualification applied to members of Parliament as to members of local bodies. . '~.,. Sir Joseph Ward: Are you aware that under the Lands for.: Settlement Act (I am not speaking of land compulsorily acquired) the Government cannot purchase for more than the Land Purchase Board recommends, so that if the suggestion that has been made were accurate tho Government would be overriding the Act?—'-' Yes." - -■-■■ If the members of the Land Purchase Board swear no pressure has been brought on them, and no interference, would you give credence to it?—"l know'-the character of the members. I do not think it could be done."

. Do you think that in the event of legislation to prevent the practice of members of Parliament taking commissions from private persons, it should apply to firms a member of which is in Parliament?— "If , it is wrong for members of Parliament, it should apply to members of firms." ■ ,■ Would you consider it honourable for a man to .use-at an election. contest a letter that.was private and confidential? —"I would sooner lose my seat.than do it." . ■ . ■ .. ■ " Some discussion ensued as to the character of the letter sent by Mr. Symes te Mr. M'Cluggage. . In answer to Mr. Massey, witness said the letter was not marked "private and confidential," but he considered it was that. ..';■■'■ Several members of the committee objected to such matters as this being brought. into the inquiry. Mr: Praser declared the, committee had, .wasted an 'hour that morning in irrelevant matter. The Press Association. The second "witness called (at the request of Sir Joseph Ward) was W. H. Atack, manager of the New. Zealand Press Association. Sir Joseph Ward was commencing to question' him about certain .rights held by fne Press 'Association; "when -Mr. Myers objected. What bearing, ho asked, can this have on the matter of the inquiry?

The chairman 'ruled the question. in order. '■■ ... --\ ,". ■'■ '' Sir Joseph Ward: Does the Press Association under the-law of this country enjoy certain rights"? Mr. Atack: Do you mean different from anyone else? Sir Joseph Ward: By practically givingl them a monopoly of Press Association aews. . , . • . Mr. Wi- Fraser objected to such questions. That matter, he said,' had surely not been opened up. Sir Joseph Ward said ho did not.know whether these gentlemen were anxious ;to protect the Press Association.' Jlr. Fraser emphatically objected to the Treiriark made by the Prime Minister. He wished : only to protect their rights as a committee. 'No v niember of the committee had a right to impute motives to another member. . Sir Joseph Ward referred to certain statements telegraphed from Stratford by the Press Association on the occasion of Mr. Hine's arrival there after making certain charges in the House—a statement that was untrue. He wished to know whether that' association received certain rights under the law of , this country. Mr. Jas. Allen: I object to that question, Mr. Chairman, and. I..ask you to rule. , ' ■■ The chairman: L;think it.is quite relevant. . Mr. Atack said he did not want to put. himself, in antagonism. to the committee, but he expressed his surprise that such questions should be asked him. Ho did not expect to be asked such questions. He did not see what it had to do with the committee or the, charges before it. Sir-Joseph Ward: I-insist-npon an answer. .. . ■ .

Mr. Atack: My answer is that the association has no particular rights that I am aware of. Sir Joseph Ward: Have you not got rights under the law that telegrams appearing under the Press Association heading cannot be republisbed until 2i hours have elapsed?—"No, only cables." So you have rights under ; the law in regard to'"cables ?~" Yes;'l thought you meant a concession.' 'There is a. copyright, laiv.",'. "■'.' ".' •■"..' I' "'.' ■ . Witness, in to. further . questions, said : that • ' sometimes the Press .Association got paragraphs from a casual correspondent, but their, agents were, ■ authorised agents, and as a rule no one else was authorised to send messages. He would object very strongly if a Press Association telegram was by an unauthorised eendor.

Sir Joseph Ward read a long telegram that, had been.published as a Press Association telegram .regarding the reception of Mr. ,Hine. at Stratford, the presentation of an address to him, and his reply. Mr. Atack said he had ascertained since the inquiry began that one paper—the Taranaki "News"—had published that telegram. It had not appeared in any other paper, so far as ho could ascertain, but : the Taranaki "News/ , although one witness had stated that it had appeared under tho Press Association, heading in a number of papers. He had asked by what authority they had published this as a Press Association message, but he had not had a reply from them yet. ■

A Question of Numbers. Sir Joseph Ward referred to another telegram sent by tho Press Association agent, Mr. Copping, stating that there were not more-than twenty people prosent. A member of the committee: No; lie said twenty or thirty. Ho wns not there himself. Sir Joseph Ward: Well, if there were twenty or thirty or forty people present, would that be any justification for an untruthful statement that a large number were presentWitness: I cannot speak from personal knowledge. I was not there. Should the Press Association be a party to disseminating party news?— "No, certainly not. . Our instructions to agents are that anything of a partisan, offensive, or libellous character should not be sent: also that telegrams should bo restricted to absolute facts." Would you, if you bad been the Press Association representative at Stratford, consider yourself justified in saying, if there. were from twenty to forty people present, that there was a large number?— "If I had been the Press Association representative, I should have left the thing severely alone. I should have sent nothing at. all."

Mr. Massey: Did the second message referred to by Sir Joseph. Ward come from the Press Association?—" Yes, I believe it did." Witness lintl no reason to believe .that Mr. Copping, their Stratford agent, would stale anything that was not correct. He was a reliable man, so far as he knew.

Mr. Massey: Have, you known messages 1o appear under the Press Association heading that were sent by special correspondents?—" That very seldom happens. 1 believe you yourself suffered once from the same thing, 60 -at rather balances matters. The most probable reason is that n printer takes up one of the wrong headings by mistake, and it is passed." .• You remember my calling attention to the Press Association having failed to take any notice of an important political meeting held in Wellington city?—"l don't recollect the circumstances." ■

Mr. Massey: As a matter of fact, I wired you from Palmerston North call-, ing your attention to it. Who aro your agents here?—" The local papers, and sometimes our own office send the messages. The. 'Evening Post' sends the afternoon messages and the 'Now Zealand Times' the evening messages."

And the "New Zealand Times" generally supports the Government?—" Yes. H is counted a Government paper."

Sir Joseph Ward: I am not quite euro about that. (Laughter.) Mr. Massey: In the case of a meeting in the evening it would be the duty of the "New Zealand Times" to forward! it? -"Yes." • So if there was any failure on this occasion, the failure would be on tho part of tho "New Zealand Times"?—" Yes." Complaints on Both Sides. Sir Joseph Ward: Have I had frequently to complain of the management of the Press Association upon similar troubles to that mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition? Witness: I believe you have suffered from occasional lapses on the part of the agents, like others. I have had to complain about nonpublication and also distorted statements?—" Let it go at that. You have had occasion to complain that not sufficient notice was taken."

Sir Joseph Ward intimated that at a later stage he proposed to call Mr. Hine, also Mr. Carncross, M.L.C., and Mr. M'Cluggage, to give evidence on this matter. Jlr. Myers said Mr. H'Cluggage had already been examined. Sir Joseph Ward said he would mov« that further consideration of the charge be postponed until Tuesday. He wished to call evidence to ascertain who had photographed the letter written by Mr. Syines, and who sent the Press Association message. Mr. Myers: How is that relevant to the inquiry? He added that ho had not the slightest exception to Mr. Hemingway being called, but he did not see what relevant evidence he could give, and he understood Parliament was going to await the decision of the committee, and they were getting along very slowly. CHARGES AGAINST MR. KAIHAU, M.P. ; The next charges taken were those against Mr. Kaihau, M.P. The charge already formulated was as follows:— "That Henare Kaihau, in or about • the year 1906,- while a member of Parliament, conducted the. sale to the. Government of a portion of the Tβ Alcau Block, and received from the vendors a commission or other sum of money."

After argument between counsel further charges were formulated as follows:—

That Henare Kaihau, in the years 1900, 1902, 1901, 1905, and 1907, while a member of . Parliament, charged, and received from, various persons on whosa behalf he prepared or presented, or undertook to present, petitions to Parliament, payments or sums of money for his services relating thereto or in conjunction therewith.

Particulars as follows:—(n) A payment by Horomona Watarauhi iii the year 1905 Jn..r«pect.. of. a .petition w.hich was to have been, but which was not in fact, presented to Parliament, (b) A payment by a member or members of the' Ngatireke tribe in 1905 in connection with a petition to Parliament, (c) A payment by Kahu Huatare in the year 1900 in connection with a petition presented to Parliament, (d) A payment by or on behalf of Mohi te Wara in the year 1901 in connection with a petition to Parliament, (c) A payment by I?e----watu te Hirako in the year 1907 for alleged services in connection with a petition presented to Parliament, (f) A payment ,by Hakiaha Tawhaio in or about the year 1902 for alleged services in connection with a petition presented to Parliament.. (f) A payment by Hakiaha Tawhoio in or about the year 1902 for. alleged services in connection ..with a petition presented'to, Parliament.

Mr/ Myers said these wore the charges he made.against Mr. Kaihau. As far ds he knew there were no others .

The Te Akau Block. Mr..Myers called . W. C. Kensington, TJnder-Secretary of the Lands, Department. He said he'had the documents dealing with the Tβ Akau Block purchase. The late land purchase officer;. Mr. : Grace, assisted by Mr. Patterson, tho chief accountant, had to do with the negotiations for the purchase. Witness's first connection with it was under the Act of 1905, under which the Crown was authorised, to purchase Nα-' tive land. In 1906 the Government appointed him to decide what land should be. purchased and the price to be given. Certain land purchase officers were appointed to. act under him. In this case Grace was the officer. A great portion of. his instructions were verbal. As soon as a decision was come to by the Government that negotiation for purchases should be carried on witness had sole control over it under the Minister for Lands and Minister for Native Affairs. He was entirely responsible, and all payments were made through him. If any necessity for doing so arose he would refer the matter to the Minister or to Cabinet. The Tβ Akau Block was first brought under his notice by Mr. Carroll, who told him that the Natives interested were willing to sell to the Crown. That was about Tanuary, , 1907. The purchase did not take place till the following June. Up to the time he spoke to. Mr. Grace he had not personally spoken to any of the Natives. The chief accountant (Mr. Patterson) was sent to supervise the purchases. Quoting from the Departmental file Mr. Kensington stated that the block was not purchased till Juno,. 1907, and no payments were made prior to thnt." Under the Land Settlement Act, 1905, the Native Minister was empowered to make advances. . In a letter dated November 24, 190G, Jie authorised the payment of ,£IOO to each of four Na'tives. The object of this was to bind the Natives to sell. Some further advances were made by Mr. Patterson. .Therewas no note on the file of the total advances prior to the sitting of the Court, but there would be on the register. The Appellate Court sat, and Mr. Grace and Mr. Patterson supervised the accounts. After tho decision of the Appellate Court in June, the Natives signified their willingness to proceed. Mr. Patterson went to Ngaruawahia with Mr. Grace, and every payment was subject to his supervision. Continuing, witness said ho saw agreements between Mr. Kaihau and the Natives. What he knew of the matter was this: In January, 1907, Mr. Carroll sent him a deed (a copy he thought) which he had received from somebody. This was sent to witness confidentially to forewarn him. An objectionable feature, was that these Natives wanted the Government to pay ten per cent, to Kaihau for advances or something; he had made, and ninety per cent, was to be paid to tho owners. Mr. Carroll said the Government could not possibly do anything of the kind, and witness said he would see that no payments were made except to the original owners.

Two Deeds. Mr. Myers produced two deeds, one between Knihau and the Natives, and the other between the Natives and the Native Minister. Both of these, ho said, contained a provision that ten per cent, ebould be, paid to Kaihau. Mr. Kensington said in reply to questions that ho thought tho deed ho had seen was that between tho Natives and tho Native Minister. Mr. Myers stated that tho deed was prepared "by Messrs. Parr ami Blomncld, solicitors, of Auckland, for parties other ..than the Government,

To Mr. Myers, Mr. Kensington stated •that he was not concerned with any payments the Natives might make after the Government paid them and got their vouchers. He had to sco that all tho payments were made to the owaiers, and to tho owners only. Mr. Myers said in some cases there were two cheques, three cheques, tind even four cheques. Mr. Kensington said that Mr. Patterson, who was. on the ground, would be able to give evidence on this point. Mr. Skoi;rett: This document would apprise you that Kaihau was acting as agent in connection with the sale to the Government?—" That is the case."

Did you give any express instructions to your agent in reference to Kaihau? Witness read a letter dated January 28, 1307, to Mr. W. H. Grace, in which he gave instructions that none of the negotiations were to be conducted through Henaro Kaihau, as the Native owners objected to his having any part in the matter. That was an instruction to the agent that none of the negotiations were to proceed through Mr. Kaihau ?—"Tes."

I understand your accountant was sent up to supervise payment into tho hands of tho Natives direct ?—"Yes." Has this purchase been a success so far as the Government is concerned ?—"A great success.." What is the total area of the block?— "Originally about ninety thousand acres." Do you know what portion was subject to Native Appeal Court proceedings?— "13,89-i acres." And that was the subject of the agreement botiveen Kaihau and the Natives? —"Yes." Did you have an interview with Mr. Blomfield, of the firm of Parr and Blomfield?—"I do not remember." Did yon make any statement to him with reference to the attitude your Department would' take up in connection with Mr. Kaihau's intervention ?—"I think I told Mr. 'Blomfield. we did not recognise Kaihau at al!." Can you, as head of the Department when the negotiations were taking place, say whether they were condncted exclusively between the Nntives and the officers of tho Government, and without the intervention of Kaihau at all?—"I can positively say that. I gave most definite instructions about it."

Sir Joseph Ward: Was the deed yQu spoke of. at any time referred by you to me?—" No." Or any statement of its contents?— "No." Before rising the committee decided that it would not allow any fresh charges to he laid after Friday's sitting.

FURTHER TIME TO REPORT. During the afternoon sitting of the House of Representatives yesterday Mr. Hanan (Chairman of theHine Allegations Committee) moved that the time within which the committee should report be extended to November 19.

Mr. G. W. Russell (Avon) asked whether the adoption of the motion would mean that tho session was to be extended another two or three weeks. If one read between tho lines it meant that the session would not end until November 26. Many of tho members were feeling that their health was becoming weakened owing to the strain. Would it not be possible for the committee to submit an interim report and leave one of<the cases, say, that against a member of the Native race, over till next year ? The Prime Minister said that only in one cast, had the evidence been concluded. The committee must so on:'it must do its work this year. It was too important to suggest that any of the charges should be h'eld over. Members should exercise patience to see what progress wa9 made by November 19. A suggestion had been made that the House should not sit on one day and that the committee should sit for 12 hours on thnt day. If that were done the length of the inquiry would be shortened. Tho committee was controlled by circumstances beyond its power. Mr. Massey said that he did not agree with the suggestion that any of the charges should be held over. He must confess that the progress of the committee :had. been disappointingly slow. Tho suggestion that the committee should sit for 12 hours on one- day came from him. Too much time was wasted over the preliminaries every, morning. If that were not done it would be impossible to finish by November 19.

The motion was then adopted.