THE ORIGINAL LETTER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1376, 29 February 1912, Page 6

THE ORIGINAL LETTER.

ITS PRODUCTION ASKED FOR... ARGUMENT of counsel. reference was now made' to the following extract, from . a letter, read in the Hoji'so .by Mr. Massey on Friday last.:— "You may remember wy introducing you to young. —-, son of ,' , one of my young Catholic party who do not follow Ward. He worked hard and loyally for us in Parnell, Ponsoaby, and especially Grey Lynn. Ho now assures mo that Payne has been . squared (.£1000) (o support Ward on a confidence motion. So sure is he of the correctness of the information that his dad is offering level money up to .£lO6 on Payne voting against you onV such motion and does not waste any money on bets without some reason." Mr. Hanan: Will you produce tho letter here? ■ Mr. Myers:.No, sir, aud I propose to give reasons. Mr. Hanan: Will you givo the name of the writer? Mr. Myers: No. Mr. Myers went on to stato that the contents of the letter were of a confidential nature. Mr. Massey had frankly and candidly stated in the House, that ho had made a mistake 'in reading he had made a mistake in reading in the House the copy of an extract' from the letter. Mr. Mussoy had admitted that ho made a mistako- and - did >wrong in doing so. ?To ask Mr. Massey now to produco tho letter or to give the name of the writer would be to ask him to do a grjevous wrong. Counsel quoted from the Encyclopaedia of tho Laws of England to'the effect that a person receiving a letter had at common law a property in it so long as he kept it to himself and that this property was lost by. publication. The writer had other rights independent of the property which enabled him to interfere with the unlimited'uso of the letter by the reeipienti' '.Tho.TecipienUniight use the'letter for' any'lawful' purpose, but publication was not such.a lawful purpose. When a man wrote a letter it was not in tho nature of,a gift to tho recipient. Tho latter had only a special property in the letter, a joint property with the writer. A Court of Law accordingly would restrain any person in possession of letters from publishing them save uuder Bpecial circumstances. Tho writer of the letter! under review'could clearly obtain an injunction from tho Supreme Court, Mr. M3-crs contended, to restrain Mr. Massey from making any use of the letter. Even supposing that a case of this kind arose in Court and a question arose as tn whether a document of this kind should be produced, tho most that tho Court could, say or do was to order the production' of/the letter upon an undertaking.being given by the party making such application that it would not be used for any collateral purpose. In the present case, to produce the letter might expose two or three persons to libel or slander actions. Even supposing that the committee, were to say, "We will order the production of the letter upon Mr. Payne giving an undertaking not to bring an aetbn," that, would not be sufficient, because the undertaking would not bo. binding upon Mr; Payne. Mr. Myers submitted (hat the committee had no power to ask for such an undertaking or to enforce it if given. Not only so, but there might be other persons to whom tho right of action might, accrue in consequence of the production.' of this letter, and ilieso persons clearly would not. be bound by en undertaking given by Mr. Payne. A Plain Declaration. Under these circumstances, counsel submitted, the committee ought not to ask for tho production of tho letter. Even if the committee did ask for it, ho would certainly take the responsibility of advising Mr. Massey that it would be most improper for him to produce it. Mr. Myers contended that onlv the writing mid publication of the extract from the letter had been declared a breach of privilege.. The House had not declared the writing of the letter to bo a breach of privilege. It could not have done so, for there was authority in "May" for stating that the.conduct or 'language upon which a libel wns based must arise from the actual .business cf tho House. The Houho would not have declared, and certainly had not declared, ihe writing of the letter to be a breach of privilege. This wos another reason why the committee should not attempt to force Mr. Jlassoy to produco the letter from which he>had read the copy of an extract. Mr, Skerrctt's Case, Mr. Skorrett, who was now called upon, Mated that he did not propose to Mulicate. at that stage, tho position Mr. Payne took up in ' regard to the non-production of the letter. The argument of Mr. Myers was that Mr. Massey had been guilty of an unlawful publication of the letter and of an injustice to the writer, .and ho asked, on that ground, that Mr. Massey should bo excused from the production of tho letter. .Mr. Myers had cited a number of authorities which had nothing to do with the question. Probably every gentleman at the table knew that tho writer of a letter had a certain interest in the letter, but this had nothing to do with tho question before tho committee. He put it that Mr. Massey had adopted the statements in this letii'er. If ho had read it outsido the Ild\i=o, where there was no privilege, ho would have been open to an action for slander. Mr. Massey might bo liable, in some way or other, to tho writer of tho letter lor its unlawful use, but he had no privilege, in any Court of tho land, for the nou-productiou of this letter. The language of Hip reference wa.4 some.•vfhat JiPoafitJaut-tfear.lJojLua..li9cLr.efsrred. to

the Committee an inquiry as to the writing and publishing of such letter, land it., appeared to him that .tho Committee had its duty to. perform in order to carry out tho reference from the House. Mr. Skerrett ridiculed the idea, that on undertaking given before tho highest ti-i— bunal in the land would not be as binding .as an undertaking given before the judicial Courts of the co'untry. Mr. Myers' had contended that no breach of privilego had been committed by the writer of tho letter because it did not affect tho business of tho House, but it was clear that n statement had been made that £500 to iIIOOO had been offered to a member to vote in a particular way on a nb-co'n&lcnco motion. His learned .friend's argument seemed to infer that you could offer and give any bribe to a member of tho House so long as it was done during recess. Mr. Myers Oh, no! Mr. Skerrett contended that his inference was legitimately drawn from what Ills-learned friend had said. Finally Mr. Skerrett said that ho was not very much interested as to tlio way in -which tho committee might determine this matter. He was only addressing" his remarks for the information of the committee. Ho repealed that, ho did not ,kuow what attitude Mr. I'nyne would tflko up' in regard to tho production of this letter. Mr. Massey's Position. Mr. Myers denied that Mr. Jlnssey had adopted the statement contained in tho letter. Ho hail done nothing of tho kind. The extract was read in the House in consequence of an invitation from. Mr. Payne to Mr. Masscy to repeat everything that happened at a particular interview. Mr. Jlassey had read the. extract'to Mr. Payne at the interview—though this,was denied by Mr. Payne—and it was in'consequence of having, read the extract at tho interview that Mr. Massey read it subsequently in the House. Mr. Massey had amply explained.his conduct by the statement which he made in tho House on tho previous .Monday. ■ The chairman: Is it not a question! of the writing and publication of this letter? Mr. Myers,: No, sir, when tho document is required for collateral purposes. Mr. Hanan: Nothing of this sort is before the committee as to ..what may take place '-'■'. Mr. Myers 2vo. sir, as to what has taken place in tho House, and 'in view of the fact that actions- might be based oil this letter. . The chaii-mnn now asked members whethor they wished to deliberate upon tho point raised as to the non-production of tho'leltor or to discuss it in open committee. Mr. Millar suggested that the discussion, should bo open. . Mr. Fraser. urged that the committee should deliberate as usual. Mi\ Russell contended that in the opinion of tho House the person who had committed a breach of privilege was clearly Mr. Massey. The House had instructed the committee to inquire into the writing and publishing.not only .of the extract but of tho letter. He wanted to ask' Mr. Myers how he identified the duties of this committee with any action' that Mr. Payne might afterwards take. Mr. Myers reulied that he did not want to ' block the committee at all. The committee, could . iiimure into the writing and publication of the letter, but was the production of the letter necessary? After some further discussion, Mr. Myers , agreed, that if Parliament, by resolution, or by appropriate legislation, were to indemnify any person who gave evidence or whose names were mentioned, the position would be altered. Even an undertaking of this kind might not,cover, all those concerned. Mr. Skerrett: Name'them! Mr. Myers: There is a gentleman here named "Blank," and then there is "Blank's father," in addition to ; tho writer of tho letter.