Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PRIVILEGE.

THE ALLEGED OFFER OF MONEYCOMMITTEE'S REPORT. NO ACTION TO JUS TAKISX. Tlio Committee of Privileges on the allegations counseled with Mr. .1. I'a.vnf (Grey Lynn) reported to the Mouse of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Reporting upon Die first order of reference, which related lo the writing ami (he publishing of the letter quoted by Mr. Masscy, the committee stated (hat it "is unable to inquire further into the matters contained in the order of reference by reason of the fact that llr. Massey, having been asked to produce the letter referred to. and to give the name, of the writer, respectfully declined to produce tin letter or disclose the name of the writer."

Upon the second order of reference the committee reported that the statement by Mr. Massey that -Mr. J'nyne was reported to have been "squared" by -Mr. Vigor Jirinvii mid Sir Joseph Ward at Napier did not constitute u In-each of privilege. .After hearing Iho evidence, the committee was satislied that there was no truth in the aliened chaise made against Mr. Brawn, the Prime Minister, and Mr. l'ayue. The statement by Mr. l'ayne that: Charles M'iittstcr h.id been autliorised to bribo him was the subject of the third order of reference. The committee was of opinion "that the. evidence on oath as to the words used is conflicting. Mr. Payne says the words used were: 'What do you think? I havu been authorised to offer you from .i'JiOO to .81000 if you will go'— I think that was the word—'with the Ward Administration.' Mr. M'Master denies the use of the above words, and savs thn words us?d were 'that 1 (M'Mask-r) could got JZM if 1 could handle him (Payne).' There being- no further evidence on that point, the committee is muxblo to tay what flic exact words used were. "The evidence leads the committee to conclude that whatever statement was made was not taken seriously by either Mr. Payne or by Air. M'Master at the time it.was.made." .Sir Joseph Ward moved, in reference to the report of Privilege Committee No. ] :— "That in the opinion of this House, a broach of privilege has been committed by tin; witness, Mr. Mus-oy, M.P., refusing to produce to the committee a letter dated February 12 from which he had quotou in the course of a speech delivered by him in the House on February 23, and that the House is of opinion that, without abrogating its rights and without: establishing a precedent, further consideration of Iho matter should be postponed." The Prime Minister said that, probably, looking at all the circumstances this was the most sensible course to follow, for the reason that Mr. Massey had publicly withdrawn and npologiscd for his mistake in quoting from the letter in the House. In view of the Leader of the Opposition, having acted in this way, it would be a mistake for the House to insist upon its rights by forcing the production of the letter. The motion was agreed to. The Hon. J. A. Millar moved: ."That in respect of the report of Privilege Committee No. 2. the report be endorsed by (he Hoine." The motion was agreed to. .Sir .10-cp!i Ward moved in respect of (lie report of Privilege Committee. No. !):— "That, in view of the evidence of Mr. M'Master and Mr. Payne, from which it is shown that there was no I jiistiiic.it.'on for the implied or suggested olfer of a bribe (<i the lion, member for Grey Lynu, lliat (he report bo rc- . ccived and endorsed .by the House." Mr. Fisher s:iid that, a statement had been made, by the member for Grey Lynn that. Mr. ■ a muddled condition, .(hat-was to .say, that he was half drunk. Sir Joseph Ward: That is in the evidence. Mr. Fisher: I know it is in the evidence and I was present at the time anil [ say that the evidence showed that Mr. M'Master was not drunk at the time. I move the addition of these words:— "And that the evidence clearly showed that Mr. Payne's statement that Mr. M'Master was muddled with drink was not substantiated." Sir Joseph Ward: The cominittee was not asked to try him. Mr. Fisher: It is no matter whom you were asked (o try. .-\ statement has been made against an individual who is not present to defend himself. Mr. Payne raised a point of order. Mr. M'Master, he said, did not prove in his evidence that he was not intoxicated. The Speaker ruled that this was not a point of order. Mr. G. M. Thomson seconded Mr. Fisher's amendment.

Sir Joseph Ward said the point nowraised had never been before the llous?, nor was it referred to the committee tor consideration. What •sort of position, lie asked, would be created if the House referred to n committee the question as to whether a man was drunk or sober.

Mr. Payne said that the Prime Minister had put the matter in its right light. The member for Wellington Central was introducing a matter extraneous to the inquiry referred to the committee. Ho (Mr. Payne) was quite prepared to defend his awn honour and quite prepared to prove that he was correct in his evidence given to the committee. The member for Wellington Central seemed to be very particular about the honour of <m absent man, but not very particular about Hie honour of one of liis fellow-niemttrs. Mr. Fisher's resolution was a suggestion that he (.Mr. Payne) had uttered what was not: ! run before that committee. No objected to such an imputation being brought against him as a member of this House. .Mr. L. M. Isitt (Cliristchurch North) opposed the amendment, which, he said, would clear Mr. M'Master at the expense of Mr. Payne. Mr. ]). Buick (Palmerston North) thought the amendment should be withdrawn. The House had not the material for forming an opinion on the point. The Hoiu 1!. M'Kenzie also opposed tho amendment. . Mr. 0. W. Hnssell (Avon) said the amendment dealt with a matter outside the committee's order of rclercnco. .1 ho committee had taken this view. He al.-o pointed out that the House had not been able to consider the evidence. The amendment was lost on the voices-, and the motion was carried. Sir Joseph Ward said he would like it to lie recorded that the rejection ot tho amendment did. not commit the House to anv opinion as to the condition ot Mr. M'Jtnst-er at the time in question.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19120301.2.10

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1377, 1 March 1912, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,077

PRIVILEGE. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1377, 1 March 1912, Page 2

PRIVILEGE. Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1377, 1 March 1912, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert