MR. HINE'S CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 980, 22 November 1910, Page 6

MR. HINE'S CHARGES.

■ iftIORE ABOUT ADVERTISING. • ftlfe. KAIHAU EXAMINED. D^.: FINDLAY ON FLAXBOURNE. JNTERESTINQ STATEMENTS.

■, further evidence, on, the. charges-made by>.-Mr.. Hine,M.P., against certain members' and ex-members /of the Legislature was , ..'heard' yesterday ;by.;.'the' special -.committee of the. iHouse.'..',. Thewhple ; day up-to ,7.30 p.ra'. :was set apart , for. the purpose, with a view to ■concluding the 'hearing. Mr. J. A. ; Hanan presided. Mt. : M.' Myers represented Mr. Hine, and Mr..C P.'Skerrett, K:C., with him-Mr.. F. B. Sharp, a'ppearBd'for the "defendants"., on the various charges, except the Flaxbourhe case,' : in which-.the, charge was against' the cGovernmont. in-power in 1904. In that case Mr:.' .Skerrett, with Mr. Sharp, appeared for;thoHon. T. K. Macdonald, M.L.C.v

[V : . CHARGES AGA.INST MR. SYMES. , " fv'•'.• .y WEST COAST'XEASES.'.•'■'. ';- J , Ftjrther evidence relating to the charges I ' .'■. against Mr. W. Symes, ex-M.P., was -first' ; :--. itaken.' '.':. .' ■.'■'"'' '. ' '

- Hugh Pollen, TFnder-Secretary for, .Internal Affairs, was.called by Mr. Skerrett, iand asked the >ieasoii for the Government's delay in paying.to Mr. George jHutckison, -of; Wanganui,' the refund of fees 55.) claimed by himland recommended by the Public Petitions . Committee. The witness said that Mr. W.- A. Duiie, of Wellington, claimed « half-share in the money, and this was' |disputed-by ; Mr.'Hutchison'and Mr. J. G., \Eaddow, of Auckland, to whom. Mr. Hutehisoiiyhad assigned'his claim. The.Gov-. ierriment decided to i make no payment •until- the dispute was settled. Delay took, [place, and Mr. .Haddow 'repeatedly pressed Sor payment.' Eventually the money was ipaid to Mr. Haddow,. and. an indemnity obtained from him. In regard to Mr. '•Hutchison's, claim of .£125 for legal expenses .in the West Coast lessees' affair,, Jlr. Symes wrote to Dr. Findlay, under date October-12,-1908/ asking for-.a refund of theso expenses. aDd said he wrote by; request of J?i'. Haddow? Dr. Findlay ..referred 'the letter to Cabinet, and-.pay-sacnt vras withheld. ...... -.■■;-• To,' Sir Joseph .Word: ,Mr. Hutchison. Vroto.a.few days ago Y (November 17,' 1910) :tothe Minister for Internal Affairs" asking'that Parliament' should be given an opportunity, this, session ,of,consider-, ing-'his claim: for .£l23'. ~Witness , had never.. withheld, a-payment. on the repretentatiorisof a" member of Parliament. No such representations had been made In regard to either of the above amounts. To the chairman: Mr. Symes may have seei him "about-some of the payments-to different claimants.' He understood that. Mr. Symes. .was acting .as .a member of -Parliament, and was merely anxious that claimants: should receive what they; were entitled to as soon as possible. ■. • ' Mr.' Skerrett. intimated that he.had no more witnesses to call in connectien with the charges against Mr. Symes. 1, , Government Advertising. ' ; Edward F. H. Hemingway, town clerk 'M-'-Stfatfordi; was called .by; Sir . Joseph .Ward,land questioned regarding the. letter' (shoWn at a previous sitting :and.. already reproduced.'in -The .Dojtinion), in which. , Hx. Symes, during the /election campaign- of ■ 1305'; wrote, to Mr: M'Cluggage, a' director- of 'the' Stratford Post,"- stating,',::in', reply, to. a. request, that his: assistance in.getting.' the paper put. on the Government advertising list xould .depend on how the paper - treated •him'in regard'.to the 'election.' Witness said. jthe'. letter had' been in the "posse's-' Biori".of"'Mi". Fookes,.solicitor to the Oppo-' sition..; party, \a.ti.. Stratford, sinco '.JBQS., [Witness never>'pnbtographed it, - nor-aii-thorised. a photograph •of it. He had a copy of it, which he read publicly during the campaign.of. 190SJ on a challenge by Mr. Symes. "Witness.'was not a director of the "Stratford "Post."'.He .- did'

'. •'■ not make" a copy of the letter'/ The copy •V was given to him shortly after tho prwas , handed to : ' the.- : Opposition :: party to-make what use.tliey.likjsd of it. 'They held a meeting and obtained coun'.feel's, opinion as to .whether the.writing "■■': of the.letter constituted a.corrupt,practice.; They discussed the question of- ; using,, the ..letter , in ,-.a court ,of ■ lair,- .arid decided .". i>ot to 'do so. ■The'.letter.purported to he ■confidential,. :. fcut : when: ho , was-.challenged : by./Mr: Symesi he thought he was. quite right in reading it at the meeting. ■■■,- ..'■..' Sir Joseph Ward: In,view of the,fact 'that the; writer of this'-letter states:

"You are at liberty to-.mako use of this iprivatel j, with- the manager and:directors, jlrat not for publication," do • you- think lit should have been made use of publicly iby yourself?—" Certainly, I do, when I •was challenged, in a. most insulting way. Mr. Symes ; alluded to Mr.; Hine an<l jue as 'quack parsons," becaufewe both happened'to be lay of the Anglican Church. ' He 'challenged.u's to come on the'. platform ■. and : read■' tho letters, •if we dared; I did what any man. would lave 'done.' If there was' any impropriety, .;"it was on the. shoujders of. the person/to .whom the'".letter■ was written, not on the shoulders of.' the party." •;...

The Press Association. • ■ '\ Sir Joseph. then asked a number of questions- regarding . certain ! 'press telegrams .reporting a. reception accorded to Mr. Hine "at the Stratford railway sta-' tion." . ".- ■■".■' -.•'■ The-witness said he Rave the., information- to .Mr.i Copping, the Press Association, agent at Stratford, and also to-Mr. Cargill, the Stratford correspondent of the New Plymouth "Daily News.",, The former -sent a, short message to different papers, and the.lattor -a longer message to the "News." .... ,:.-.. . .... Sir Joseph Ward produced newspaper cuttings, which, he said, showed that the' Jong message appeared" under: the Press Association heading in the New. Plymouth "Daily News," Wellington i '"Post," The Domikion, Waitara "Mail." Hawera. "Star," "Taranaki Herald," "Inglewood Becord." all on September 1910. Mr. Myers: Does Sir.Joseph Ward say that The Dominion published tho long telegram under, tho Press Association heading? ...■■■ ".':•-. . .■ ■ ■ . Sir.Joseph Ward: Perhaps Mr. Myers -ivill-let me finish my question. The witness further said that the "Daily Sews" stated in a subsequent is--6U81 that, the message was from its own correspondent, and had been nttrinnted to tie Press Association by inadvertence'. The, other Taranaki papers mentioned were evening ■ papers, and hurl. probably clipped the item from the. "News,". re■fleating, of course,'tho error, or thev "'--'I psrhaps received a short 'wire from Mr. CoDpin". and amplified it from the "News." •. •' • ■

AVitness said ho was at the railway station when Mr. Hine arrived, and it was quite true that there was a larce number of supporters present—ho- would, cay sixty.- or seventy. ■ ■ ■ ■

To Mr. Massey: The' Stratford "Evening Post" had no politics, and did not eupport either candidate at tho last, two elections, but it leaned a little towards the Government candidate last time.. ,

To Mr.'Allen: Sir Joseph Ward spoke at New •' Plymouth during , the' election, and referred to Mr. Hino in his speech, which was circulated in the Stratford district as a supplement to the Stratford "Post." The first column-and a quarter of it referred to Mr. Hjnc. Complimentary, I suppose ?—"I couldn't say. I haven't read it for some time."

More About the Letter. To Mr. E«ed:.For anything ho knew at the time, the directors of tho paper might have handed the letter over to tho Opposition party to use it against Mr. Synics.- . • To. Sir Joseph Ward: Once it came into the possession of the party, he considered they were at liberty to mako nny use of it." He did'riot'suggest that tho »port of Sir.Joseph. Ward's Now Plyeaoath speech, was circulated by. the Presrier himself. ' . To Mr. Massey: He thought it was in the public interest to read-; the letter. Tc Mr. Reed:. Mr. M'Cluggage was looked np'on as-a Government supporter. Witness also.said Mr. MCluggages nremo: asking for tho return of the letter was not on- his copy. His copy, of the

'letter was given'to him" (witness) by Mr. Anderson, solicitor to the company which owned the Stratford "Post." To Mr. Skerrett: When Mr.. Symes, in his .challenge, said "those letters of mine," '.witness took him. to mean "any letters.' He might havo been referring to 'letters about tho West Coast lessees' a:airs. maori' petitioners. ' ' evidence of mr. kathau. •The committee then reverted to the charges against-Mr. Kaihau, M.P. Mr. Skerrett had-intimated'that ho would call no evidence on-the To Akau case, but would', call Mr. Kaihau on the series of charges of receiving money from Natives in connection with petitions to Farlia- ■ ■Hen.aro • Kaihau, M:P. for tho Western Maori' District, said he had been a member of Parliament' for about 15 years. Ho carried on .the business of Native .agent and conductor of cases before tho Native- Courts. ■ Counsel -then elicited statements, on each of the separate charges of. receiving money in connection with petitions to Parliament. The first' one taken was that on' which Horomona Wataunhi hod stated that he paid Mr. Kaihau_ ;£ls in. connection with a' petition in 1905. Tho witness said that Horomona Wataurihi appointed him in 1905 at Ngaruaw'ahia,' and witness went .with him to Auckland and searched the records relating'.to.his case. It 'was for this' work that he received payment. ■ Oil' the next' charge," witness said he received no payment in connection with itho' peStiqii" of- Kainanomaho. He- had advanced money' to'Kahiaiib'mano for expenses !in Wellington—to the amount ofmore, than .£ls—and- was repaid long afterwards. ■ "".- Witness remembered Kahu Huataro 'coniing'td'Wellingtbtfin'l9oo,'and haviiig 1 seen-him nreviously in Auckland about the inquiry into the. will of 'his brother, Wahanui. Witness told him in Auckland that lie would have to go into the matter thoroughly, and find-how the applicant had been worsted before the Native Land Court. ■ After 'going into 'it he told Kahu that the": .expenses ■of "himself and his ■clerk would -be at least ,£2O, ■ and he would want an advance of ilO. He explained that this-was quite apart from Parliamentary business. •'• Kahu could not find tho MQ. Witness did not now remember whether Kahu gave him any money in Wellington, but it he - did it was for the work of searching the records in Auckland. , 'v';.;■'.". :

• "Working the Act"' Explained. ,- ■ The charge of receiving; in .1904, a payment made on behalf .of Mohi Te Wara, in connection -with 1 , a petition claiming an-interest in Waipa, Lot GS, was taken next. Keritoke Tβ Ahu (the witness stated) came :to ■ him about tho matter in 1900. : Witness said he was quite willing ■to present the petition as member for tho district, but he could .do no more. 'In 1903 Keritoke approached Mm , 'again, and, as a'result, witness did considerable work in' searching records and: inquiring. into the .circumstances of' the.'case. : ..Witness-- said:■, "Before, you draw'up. the, petition,, .you must give me £15," Keritoke said Ue had not got the money, and asked for what it was due. Witness replied it was for work he had done; expenses- he had--paid out of his own pocket, ,, and legal opinion he had obtained'in Auckland as to. the drafting of -a- clause ,tq meet the. case. Witness said.he could reimt- the.money to. him at: Wellington..,.'He\acknowledged sending the telegram: "Send me the petition and the money, lest it b&.'too late.—Kaihaii." The "money"-referred to was for .what he had done, as-already stated. : In. regard to another telegram, in which witness said: "Send me £o for the working of the Act," this meant tho drafting of the clause by. a ■lawyer;•.■Hβ had previously consulted Sir.. Sinclair, solicitor, of Auckland, about similar,, clauses. Ho received .£ls. from Keritoke.' , . The .witnes's'.'jHiid.'he.hau'no recollection, in regard to the preparatioi; of any, petition for a. Native -named .Kewatu. In : conversaiion with: him, .Eewatu said ho had : been in Wellington "some'timo over the matter, which had already cost him £25. Each day he happened to see him Kewaiu was in an intoxicated state. . Ho had no recollection .of having received .£25 from ltewatu; he-had:no knowledge '.'that he paid him any money at all. Kewatu told him that, hh trouble .was • that the boundary line of * his land had been included in land acquired by ' the Crown. , In regard to this matter, witness advised -him to consult the Native Minister. He secured the'interview for Kewatu, who was one of his constituents. "It is Wrong."

To Mr. Myers: He had heard that it would be wrong for a member to charge his 'constituents for carrying" out .his duties to 'them.- As regards' any private work done • by him outside tho House, he did not think any blame would attach to him. His knowledge l did not extend so.far as , to enable;him to say that ho knew members had Been expelled at Home for charging in regard to such .matters'. Is it a fact that you;charge, the petitioners for nearly, every petition yon present to the Houso?—"That' is a wide question." ... .

■ Answer it ?—"No; it is wrong." Is it not common talk among the Natives in your district that that is eo ? 1 Mr. Skerrett objected, and the question was disallowed. ' . ... Are. you not in the habit of charging what you tell the Maoris are fees in regard .to petitions you present to the Housed—"lt is .wrong." , - Do you recognise that if you are telling the truth it follows that no fewer than five other witnesses have sworn what is untrue?—"l am not responsible for what they said." " Is the statement true that moneys were paid to you for'presenting petitions?—."lt is -wrong." . ■ To further questions, witness said that a Native, Horomona, paid him. ,£5 in 1905, but it was not in regard to a petition. Both Horomona andßemana were mistaken, when they said Horomona paid him ,£ls in regard to a petition. -Is it not a fact that immediately the charges were made against you, you sent your secretary, post haste'ttTinterview.the Natives who -would -bo witnesses .'—"Not at all. . Hβ did hear that Remana, a ness for Mr. Hine, got all tho Natives over to Mr. Hine's side." -.(Laughter.) ' Did not your secretary leave Wellington for Auckland the morning the,charges were made?—"No; I feel the accusation very strongly." - ■-■.•' ■ ' You .. don't- look sensitive?— It is wrong, but I won't be annoyed." : "Payment for Work Done." : AVitness was then questioned with regard to a. petition which .a Native, Keritoke", wanted him to present. He did not want to present, the petition, It was true ho had wired: "Send me the petition and the money.",. The' money in question was in payment for work done. But Keritoke'says.you did no work for him?—"Keritoke is a man- who. js. always humbugging and telling Jjes." Is he a-relative of yours?- A distant Why did you present, the"; 'petition when it came accompanied by .'the money?—"l presented it, and the money-was for searching up information for him. Kesardin? other questions, witness said that he.was quite justified, in sending,a wire to Reritoke to send .£5 quickly, in regard to a clause which went into ( a Washing-up Bill. „ ; ,;.','.'': . •. „„ The £i went into your pockef,?- ies. I had to'pay the money to my lawyer for advice out of my own pocket. • To another question-on tho same subject, witness said . ho' did not wish _ it to be understood that ho denied haying recohVd- the. money. ~The..£o was only a portion of the money which Keritoke wed him for; the troublo lie had been What was tho necessity for him to send it that, week?—"l.wanted to be paid tho balance owing" to me." (

Other Witnesses Contradicted. . Questioned further, witness said he remembered'the payments to tho Natives in regard'to Te'Akau Block. The chairman,', at this'stage, ruled that tho witness, had.been tendered only in regard to tho case involving petitions. Mr. Myers: Were you at that time doinc any work in regard to the Moerangi Block? ' An objection to the. question was upheld. ■ What woro,.you doing.in June, July, and August,' 1907?—" I think that thero was a Court sitting in regard to ToAkau, and I was also working on my fa™." How was it.that you asked Parliament for loavo of absence and your honorarium on account.of illness? . Mr. Skerrett objected to the question. Was Mr. Myers entitled to investigate

I the whole of Mr.' Kaihau's conduct as a inombcr of Parliament? Mr. Myers: But ho lias contradicted five other witnesses. : . The chairman: You ought to be satisfied. Leave it at that, Mr. Myers. The committee has hoard his contradiction. "Not a Rich Man." Sir Joseph Ward: Have you at any time received any Government money for work done in connection with the purchase of. Government lands?—"No, not a penny. The Government and I are enemies." (Laughter.) Mr. Massey: Do you say that you and your secretary have not been to Auckland sinco the committee first ' eat.— "Yes." ■

The chairman: What amount have you received in regard to all the petitions?— "I can't say what I, received for the work I did—work which' was apart from presenting the petitions." ■Is it necessary for. you so far as a living is concerned' to carry on' this kind of business?—"l can't, say that I am a rich man, but I have enough to live on." ...

After paying your : election expenses, havo you enough to livo upon, out of your honorarium ?—"Not- nearly enough." Then you have to do i other. work to' maintain 'yourself ?—"Yes." ■ Mr. Skerrett said this finished his case.

FLAXBOURNE AGAIN. ME.' WILSON'S.EEPOET. INTERESTING EVIDENCE.' .Sir. Joseph Ward" then called further evidence relating.. to . the Flaxbourne case, in which the charge was:— "That, in or about" tho year 1901, ■ the Government, haying taken steps ' to acquire compulsorily the property ' known as tho Flaxbourne Estate and appointed a member of tho Legislature; to wit, Thomas Kennedy Mac-, donaldi a member of the" Legislative, Council, as their assessor, and knowing or believing that by reason of his • being a member of. tho Legislature,'the said Thomas Kennedy Mac- . Donald could not be paid any reniuneration for so acting as assessor, sent the then partner of the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, one Alexander Lorinior- Wilson, to "make a casual inspection o£ tho said property, and paid him an exceptional and wholly -extravagant fee therefor, with . tho intent or object of indirectly remunerating the said Thomas Kennedy , Macdonald or his partner or firm- by the services of the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald as such assessor as aforesaid." ' ■ About' Values. f. W. Flanagan, Valuer-General, said chat tho Government valuation of the Flaxbourne Estate in 1904 was-.£160,709.. The owners claimed .£410,000. The capital value of the 11,700 acres reserved by the Court for the owners in 1904 was .410,200. The total • area of tho estate was 57,373 acres, and the. portion bought by . the -Crown, was 45,073, .acres.- Tho owners' claim;for this area was 5369,800, and ,the sum awarded by the Court was .£181,675,. a difference of ,£188,125. Tho Government valuation of the property acquired' was,- in 1907, ,£220,077 .(capital value), an increase of about .£1 per acre since the purchase. Since the acquisi-

tion of the estate, 35 transfers' had been granted of 11,21)6 acres,' and .£18,093 ss. had passed as consideration money. This included JEB9M 7s. 4d.-for improvements, and £9148 17s. Bd. represented the increase in the unimproved value, which was over ■■ llis. per " ■

James M'Kerrow said he was ciairman of the Land Purchase. Board for seven years. During that period the'Flaxbourne Estate was ■ offered to the Government by the owners,' who, however,'did not name a price. The board ' recommended. tho

Government to purchase-it, at £1 15s. an acre, and an offer was made accordingly, but was not;,'accepted. ;Tho law. would not allow the Government'to give .more than the board .recommended. . The estate had a bad refutation ■ for being infested by ra!>j)its. The Government never interfered with tho. board, and no member of the Ministry ever attended any of its meetings. 'No member of Parliament ever intervened in the work. Sometimes a member could say that such and such a property would be a good one'to buy. . To Mr. Masscy: It was inlß9B that tho Government made, the ..olfer of £1 15s. per acre". With legal and other expenses, the cost to the State came to more than , £i per acre when the estate was. finally acquired. He knew of no caso in which a member of the Government. Ac? compauied the board in* visiting a pro-, perty. ■ : ' ' Mr. Wilson Again. Alexander L. Wilson, who tad previously given, evidence, .was asked by tlie Premier how long-he had , stayed at Flax-: bourne. '. :; ■;•■■■'■"•.'' v Mr.. Myers objeoted to the, question. The evidence had already been given, ami when he called.Mr. Wilson on this very point just prior to the evidence by Mr. Griffin; ho , was not allowed to proceed: . Sir Joseph Ward said it would save time i! lie was allowed to proceed, because otherwise he would have to call Mr. M'Callum, who was at Blenheim. Mr. Myers said be would not object if. Mr. Wilson could give direct evidence. Sir Joseph Ward was then allowed to proceed. A Week at Flaxbourne. . Can you inform the committee how long you were at Flaxbourno in connection with your inspection and report to the Government in 1903 ?—"I told the committee that' I thought I left. Wellington on the Thursday or Friday,, but. that it might have been the Saturday. lam now satisfied that-it was Saturday. I was at Elaxbourno on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, 'and Fri- , . day. ■"I returned to Blenheim on the Saturday, and saw. Mr. M'Callum. . I arrived homo in . Wellington on Sunday, leaving by a small steamer at 11 o'clock at night, and arriving hero at'daylight." . Why are you certain of it?—"l remember arriving on the Sunday perfectly,, and going to business on .Monday. Also in looking through my valuation, I remember pretty well where I was during tho week, nnil could not possibly -have done the work I did in the time stated by Mr. Griffin. I am certain in my own mind and from documents , in my possession that I was, there the whole week." I understand that you gavo a detailed report on every' subdivision, so that if the statement is'made —- Mr Myers: I ask for the. production of tlio report, if anything is to bo said a Sir Joseph Ward: Well, we shall have l)r. Findlay here presently..

"Absolutely Incorrect." To Mr Massoy: Witness was on horseback ' every day except the day he' inspected tho buildings. He did some oi the paddocks also on that day Mr. Bnchanan mentioned Mr. unfiins statement that he had told Mr. Wilson that he could only let him have, a horse on the Monday, as it was lured and had to bo returned. "Witness: "I- am afraid to trust myself to say what I think-about that evidence. It was absolutely incorrect." . Questioned by. Mr. Myers, witness admitted that he left Wellington on the Penguin on Saturday afternoon. December 21 He-had made a mistake beforo in saying that ho left on. Thursday or Did Von not say you left Flaxbourno on tbo'day Mr. Griffin went to the races? —"No. I said we broke up camp and I left because Mr. Griffin wanted to go to the races." Mr Myers produced a .file' of the ■ iivenin? Post," showing that the Blenheim races took' place'on November 26—a month earlier than witness's visit to Flaxbourne. Did you get any information from Mr. M'Callutu about the subdivisions you did not personally see?—"l think I saw pretty well the lot." ' Will you pledge your oath that you saw every subdivision ?—"Thero wore, some of the smaller.blocks. I did not go over. I could see them without doing so. Did you report on every one?—" Yes. Information from Other People. Then from whom did you get- information?—"! Rot some from Mr. Greville, and a great deal from Mr. Edward lfanny, and from Mr. M'Naughton." And is that how you make a confidential and special report and valuation on a largo property, namely, as to some of the subdivisions, by getting information from other people, -and not seeing them yourself?—" What I wanted from some of them, and particularly Mr. M'Naughton and Mr. Greville, was tho amount of first, second, and third-class land, to see how it compared with my. own notes.

To Mr. Buchinan: He rod" about after arriving on the Sunday, to get the lay of some of tho paddocks.' It was a long, summer day. Previous Witness Again Contradicted. The chairman read a portion of Mr. Griffin's evidence, in which ho had stated that Mr. AVilson said to him: "Don't bother about me. I don't want _to seo the country. I am going to make 'a report. 1 am doing this because my partner is acting as assessor without payment." Witness denied having used these words, or any words of similar import. Ho had never met Mr. Griffin before, and it was most unlikely that ho would make a confidant of =him. He did not tell ..Mr. Griffin for \vhoni he was making a report. ■ He had very little talk with Mr. Griffin. He had more with Mr. Greville, because tho latter met him in a friendly spirit, and assisted him in every way. Witness leant to Mr. Greville, and not to Mr. Griffin. The inspection of the buildings occupied a forenoon. Witness also-gave an emphatic denial to Mr. Griffin's statement, that "Mr. Wilson had nothing to do, and did not want to' do anything.'" Sir Joseph Ward: Have you got a telegram confirming your statement as to the time you were at Flaxbourne? Mr. Myers objected to the question. The .Chairman , upheld the objection, saying that what was asked for would not bo evidence. ■DR. FINDLAY'S EVIDENCE. '

THE LATE MR. SEDDON. ,• ME. WILSON'S ENGAGEMENT, ■Tho Hon. Dr. Findlay, who'acted as counsel.for the Crown .during a portion of ■ tho proceedings connected with the riaxbourne purchase, • and is now Attor-ney-General, was then called by Sir Joseph Ward and asked to mako a statement. • "It is a very long story," said the witness. "It would.take a great number of hours to tell the whole story of the Flaxbourne estate." -.-•-. - . The Prime' Minister: Perhaps the :Chairman had better read the charge.. ■■ Tho Chairman did so. Dr. Findlay: Is that a charge against the counsel for tho Crown or against the Government of the day? The Chairman: It is a charge against tho Government. ' It relates to the conduct of the Government. : Sir Joseph Ward: I think you'onght to tell Dr. Findlay what Government. : Dr. Findlay: I know the date. The only Minister to whom it can possibly refer is the late Mr. Seddon. . I Tho witness then'proceeded to make a statement, prefacing,it with a remark that the events referred to occurred seven years ago, or' more, and his recollection was somewhat vague. His records threw practically no lignt on the matter. Ho was asked shortly before tho. hearing .in December, 1903, to-act as counsel. Mr. Seddon followed tho plan that had been adopted by Sir J. M'Kenzie, of largely controlling tho , preparation of tho case for-the Crown. ■ Witness had never had such an anxious and troublesome client. Mr. Seddon treated the proceedings as if every penny to be paid under the 'award had to come out of his own pocket, and witness always felt that' this feeling sprang from a genuine public spirit. Mr. Seddon delayed instructing counsel as long as ho could, because ho wanted to save legal costs. Another.reason why.Mr. Seddon kept tho matter in his own hands as long as possible was that, in the majority of eases, nobody but tho Minister could get witnesses for the Crown. People objected to giving evidence in a case- against a neighbour, and one of their own el'ass. One man who ha< joined'in a petition, to the Government to acquire Flaxbourne refused to give evidence; saying that it would mako his life unbearable. Mr. Seddon often had to mako personal appeals to men of position to come-forward and give evidenec.

Mr. Wilson Gomes on the Scene. Not many days before the great fight began—and it was tho greatest fight New Zealand ever had under tho Land for Settlement Act—Mr. Seddon found himself in great difficulty for lack of witnesses. Thoso whoso names had bean submitted by the Department would not come forward—mainly because tho Cliffords were a deservedly popular family. The final list showed that witnesses camo from all over the. country, -but. very few from Marlborough. Mr. Wilson had been an. assessor in large compensation cases, not under the Land for Settlement Act, and had been a witness in largo compensation cases oftener than any other man in New Zealand. He had prepared cases for witness, and ho had a general knowledge of such' matters equalled by very few 'men in Now Zealand. Ho was ''a reliable man, and just the kind of man to serve well in that case. He knew tussock country, like Flaxbournc, and, : beyond all, he had tho confidence of Mr. Seddon. Witness's impression was that Mr. Seddon retained him. Witness had no record of having retained him or fixed his fee, but ho .remembered seeing Mr. Seddon prior to the trial of December, 1003, and tho latter annoyed him by declaring that ho was uneasy about some of the witnesses to be called by- the Crown.

The Late Premier Again. Mr. Massey. asked whether the evidenco was relevant. ;...■•. Sir Joseph Ward: The charge is against tho. administration of tho late Mr. Seddon. Mr. Massey: I don't,admit that. It is against tho Government that was then in office. ■ . The chairman (to witness): What Government was then in office?—" Undoubtedly the Seddon Government. I never, saw any Minister about this matter except Mr. Seddon." Mr. Massey.- said a lot of Dr. Findlay's evidence was not at. all relevant, to the charge. "He was not sure whether Dr. Kndlay was. there as counsel for the Crown or as a witness. < The chairman said he had allowed a good deal of'latitudo because the charge was against the Government of tho late Mr. Seddon. Mr. Massey: It is against the Government that was in offico at the time. • The chairman: Mr. Seddon was a momber of that Government. Mr. Massey. So. was Sir Joseph Ward. . Sir Joseph Ward: Mr. Seddon- is not here to defend himself. . "A Very Lorip Report." Dr. Findlay, continuing his evidence, said that. Mr. Seddon- told him-that Mr. Wilson would go to Flaxbourne and make a complete valuation and report. He also wauted Mr. Wilson to meet a number of the witnesses there, and discuss their valuations, with a view to advising whether they should be called. Beforo Mr. AYilson went, ho obtained from witness's office a great deal of data; plans, valuations, and other information. The report Mr. Wilson afterwards submitted was a very long one. Witness thought it ran lo thirty-four pages. Its main purpose was to' assist- counsel in the contest about the classification of the land, .which , witness regarded as the chief feature of tho case. He did not know how long Mr. Wilson was away, but his impression was that he came back in about ten or twelve days, and saw witness again after four or five days. It ran in witness's mind that Mr. Wilson said he - had put in fifteen or sixteen days, in Marlborough * and . Wellington, preparing the report. It was given to Mr. Seddon, who, witness believed, was very well satisfied with it. Mr. ■ Seddon made it the basis of discussion with witness about the witnesses to be called.

Mr. Seddon and tho Partners. To the chairman: He had repeatedly seen Mr. Griffin, but thought the latter was mistaken when ho said witness had told him he did not intent" to call Mr. Wilson as a witness. Mr. Griffin might havo been thinking of some conversation with Mr. Sim, who came into the case later. Any agreement with Mr. Wilson must have been made by Mr. Seddon. Ho did not consider that Mr. Wilson's fee was excessive, when compared with his general earnings and with what was paid to other. valuers at Flaxbourne. Mr. Seddon never said or suggested to witness that Mr. Wilson was getting a fee that was' really intended for his partner. Mr. Seddon did say that tbo country would compensate Mr. Macdonald by a direct vote of Parliament, and Mr. Macdonald had claimed that all along. To the 'Chairman: Mr. Macdonald had not been paid anything for his services. Ho had made a claim to him as AttorneyGeneral for JESOO or ,£GOO to bo placed on tho Estimates for him. "Grossly Unfair," Sir Joseph Ward: Do you think that Mr. Seddon was the. sort of man who

would authorise the payment of .£165 to Mr. Wilson that was intended to bo a payment for Mr. Macdonald? . Dr. Findlay.' Your question is, That Mr. Seddoii authorised a payment to one man which was really intended for another, under circumstances that the second man, being a legislator, could not receive the payment? I entirely decline to believe it. The charge is grossly unfaii' to him!

Witness further - stated " that Cabinet had declined to accede to Mr. Macdonald's application for payment. Mr. Macdonald always maintained that Mr. Seddon had told him the country was not going to see him lose money over the affair. If Mr. Wilson only got X 165 it was the poorest bit of work they had ever done.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Seddon, in connection with estates which wcro being acquired, had to virtually fight the whole of the.large landowners?—" Yes,. and tho same was the case in regard to Sir John M Konzie." Frequently witnesses for the Crown .would not como unless they were subpoenaed and conduct money-, was paid to them. Tho claims of the owners usually were largely, in excess of "the awards. In thirteen estates ho believed it amounted to over half a million.

- So that Mr. Seddonnnd the late Sir John M'Kenzie were able to save the country over half a million in this way?

—"Whatever saving was made was ,due, not so much to the industry of counsel, as to the anxiety of Mr. Seddon ■ and ■ Sir John M'Kenzio to see that the price was a fair one." ■

A Heated Interlude. Sir Joseph Ward (heatedly): And. this is the thanks that one of them gets. • Mr. Massey: That is not fair. Sir Joseph Ward (amid interruption from tho Chairman): It is perfectly true. Mr. Massey: This continual ■ eheltering behind Mr. Seddon is cowardly. Sir Joseph Ward: The cowardliness js in the reference to his administration. Proceeding, Sir Joseph Ward insisted on saying that tho charge was one against Mr.. Seddon's administration, against his administration in connection with a particular estate, and in regard to a pay--ment authorised by him to Mr. Wilson. The ■ Chairman: That is a matter of comment; wo are simply here to ask questions. , Examination continued: Did - you know of anything to cause you to suppose that ■Mγ. Seddon was doing anything but his duty?—"l had no such impression. Nor could anyone: "else. I never met a man who could say' so." Sir Joseph: Nor I. That is all I wish to ask. 'To Mr. Massey. He had inferred that this was a chargo against Mr. Seddon. But you yourself' certified to the correctness of the account?—" Yes." Don't-you-think it ,is rather a charge against you?—"lt is not a. matter of money, but one of fraud in our law." Did the State get value for that , money? —"Yes." Who Was Responsible? Then I think you should meet • the chargo without reference to Mr. Seddon? —"I knew there was an agreement with Mr. Wilson and I certified for the payment." •' Therefore, you were responsible for the, payment?—"lt is a question of—" Mr. Massey: I am asking the question. —"And I will give tho answer which expresses my view." After further bickering, Dr. Findlay, replying to further questions, said-that ho did not make out the agreement with Mr. Wilson. He did not think ho had to do> with retaining him. The roport was in his. office; or at the office of Messrs. Mundy, Sim 1 and Stephens, at Dunedin. He believed , Mr. Wilson was not,called as a witness. The impression was that the visit and report occupied Mr. Wilson 15J or 16 .days. You said there was, a -difficulty in getting witnesses. Would you be surprised to know that the Crown had from 30 to 40.?-"No."

That does hot look as if there was much difficulty?—"On the other hand, look at the expense it cost the Government."

Mr. Massey then asked some., question about a Mr. Tattle. Dr. Findlay' said that he had been a clerk, in his.office. He afterwards went farming. Hβ had complained of' an _attack that was made on him in the course, of the inquiry. He received ,£631 for 201 days' work. No other man earned his money so well;;. , • ' - ;; : To Mr. Allen: Mr. Wilson was to make a full report and valuation. Some men could have dono so in a. week, others not in- eternity. An active valuer would get over Flaxbourne in a week. If Mr. Griffin said eleven days wonld ba the shortest time would you dispute him ? —"I have a great respect for Mr. Griffin. , Sometimes ho takes as wrong-headed ideas as any man I know. He knows more about land valuing than I do." Did you see.the agreement that-was made, with Mr. Wilson?—" No.. I don't suppose .it was reduced ■to writing. I lave no doubt Mr. Seddon told me what was the arrangement." You are quite sure you were told?— "I nm suro I did not fix tho fee at .£165; it must have been fixed by Mr. Seddon." To Mr. A. M. Myers: J2185 was a reasonable fee provided that Mr. Wilson was engaged fifteen and a half or 6ixteen days. Was your impression that it was a valuable report?—"iV valuable- one honestly obtained." ■.-■•' • , Mr. Reed: You would not have certified to the amount if you had thought otherwise?—" No." . . "A Perfectly Honest Man." . .To Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Griffin was a, valuer for the Crown. He had always a great respect for his opinions oil lane values. Although he was a man of greal impetuosity and bitterness, he believed be was a perfectly honest man. Mr Skerrett: Would a certifying officer ha justified in certifying the money was due under an agreement, although the aereement was not made-personally by him,, but made by. the Department ?- "Yes; it is done frequently. To Mr. M.Myers: Mr, Wilson would be mistaken if he said that ho (Dr. Findlay) made the arrangement or fixed ft« fe Wilson's report wonld go to him (witness) although it was being made at he of Mr.. Seddon. His impression was that he took the report personally -to Mr. Seddon, and they discussed it. - Then it would be right to say that he made the report for Mr. Seddon ?- In ° When Se did e you take over the ease ?; "I, ftan-WdoM.. You know that is alV Sr U MyeT(smiling): Well, lamnot Griffin "as a very competent valuer. *nd very enthusiastic ?-"Strenuous" He takes a great interest in his work? Findlay said he would not be surprised to hear that twenty valuers had been over the ground by November, 1803.

Position of an Assessor. Would you have called Mr. Wilson as a witness beforo a Court of which his partner was an assessor?- My own view is it •would not be right. The, Supremo Court ruled that it was not so improper as to set aside the award. . Mr. Myers: -Don't you remember that the assessors disagreed, and it was the Judge's award to which the parties agreed? Would you, as Attorney-General, c,°ll a witness whose partner was acting in such a capacity ?-"I not care to give a conclusive answer to that question. The Lord Chie Jushce Coleridge, in a. judgment, has ruled that an assessor is onlv an advocate, and not a Judge. In a "Napier ease, Mr. Justice Edwards had ruled similarly. You appoint an 'assessor to do his best for the side he represents. Of course, I know.it is very nice to say, 'My sense of this or that or something else, etc' I am not quite snro that if a'witness is a good witness ho should not be called under such circumstances." . ' ' ~.,,, Continuing, ■ Dr. Findlay said that ■ he could not say whether it was ,cver intended to call Mr. Wilson as a witness. Supposing he was at Flaxbourne for two aud a half or three days, and did not go to all tho paddocks, but got his information from other people, would you say that ho was entitled .to a fee of jilGs?-"I should say that he had played the part of a. rogue, and I don t believo th.it ho did." , „, Is (hero anything on the file, or within vour knowledge, that Mr. Macdonald inade a claim for JSOO or .OjOO in tho lifetime of Mr. Seddon for his services in connection with tho case?—"l don't know. It would be sent direct to Mr. Jjeddon. Certainly not through me."

Is' there any reference' in your diary to Air. Wilson's appointment?—"No direct reference." ■

Was Mr. Wilson's visit to Flaxbonrne the result of a suggestion by Mr. Seddon or yourself?—" Mr. Scddon's." ' Do you know whether Mr. Wilson'saw Mr. Keddon?—"l inferred that he did, for Mr. Seddon said that he wanted Mr. Wilson to go over." ' Do you know if the suggestion came from Mr. Wilson or Mr. Macdonald to Mr: Seddon that Mr. Wilson-should go?— "I could not tell that. Mr. Seddon relied greatly on Mr. Wilson.' At that time of his life he had some suspicion in regard to some valuers. Ho had complete confidence in Mr. Wilson."

An Interesting Assertion. Continuing, Dr. Findlay- said that, he was under the impression Mr. Wilson was a witness in one of the early Hawke's Bay cases. Ho was in the case relating to the Post Office lands.' Mr. Tattle- was not employed at his suggestion. That witness hod done soma work in connection with earlier cases in Hawke's Bay. Ho believed Mr. Seddon had every confidenco in Mr. Tattle. Was it necessary to havo someone-for nearly a year for tho purpose of showing witnesses over the property ?—"That. wa9 not the only work which Tattle did. There was work to be done at Wellington, Dunedin, and elsewhere in great variety, and I think of great 'value. His work was well done." .' ' . . Did you consider it necessary or advisable to send Mr. Wilson ' to Flaxbourne?—"l think Mr. Wilson .was a man of good judgment, and was reliable, and I quite recognised Mr. Seddon's leason for sending him there." ■ But did you personally see the necessityfor his being sent?—" Probably if I were left quite alone I should not have sent him. The fact is that Mr. Seddon and I differed in regard to the reliability of Mr. Griffin. Mr. Seddon did not trust Mr. Griffin and I did. I did not want to mention this matter." And you had had experience of him in other cases and had .always found Mr. Griffin reliable ?—"ln my judgment always." . . ' .

If ft were left to you, would you have sent Hγ. Wilson to mako a report in view of the fact that' his 'partner was to bs an assessor .'—"Probably not. I should not have seen any serious objection to doing it. I am hot going to be led into passing any implied . condemnation of. Mr. Seddon. From Ms point of view ho did quite right."

Would it be Fair? . Did Mr. Wilson ascertain tie values of the other valuers?—" Probably." And would be able to discuss the matter •with Mr. Mncdonald?—"l don't think-so. You can make your own ——" Would it be fair?—"l have already answered," Would you allow your assessor'to know beforehand the views of . the valuers?— "I see the point; it is no use pursuing.it.". ' Before the committee adjourned till 10.30 this morning, the Prime Minister intimated that he would call the Secretary to Cabinet in regard to Mr. Macdonald's claim, and he would also recall Mr. Barren to ask him another question or two.