PRIVILEGE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1508, 2 August 1912, Page 2

PRIVILEGE.

/ THE STORY OF A LETTER. • "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL," INQUIRY BY A PAKLTAMENTARY . COMMITTEE. The Privilego'Committed sot up to investigate tho question raised by Mr. B. M'Callum, member for Wnirnu, sat yesterday mohiing, with Mr. J. A. Hanan, M.P., as chairman. It was alleged in effect by llr. M'Callum that a letter containing libellous statements affecting Mr. M'Callum's character was sent to a member of Parliament. The letter was a copy of an original written by William Sinclair, solicitor, to 'William Carr, of Blenheim, concerning tho Wairau election petition. Mr. William. Sinclair conducted his own .case; Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. S. A. Atkinson, appeared for Mr. M'Callum. The following letter from Mr. William Carr was read:— Blenheim, July 26, 1912. Tho Hon. Thoinas Mackenzie, M.P., Wellington. Sir,—l have the honour to 1 acknowledge tho receipt of your communica- 1 tion of 18th' inst., requesting my attendance at the inquiry of the l'rivilego Committee "on Ist pro.x., to give evidence re tho publication qf a letter written by Wilham Sinclair to me on March 25 last. In reply, I beg to say that while I have every desiro to treat tho committee with courtesy, and to 1 facilitate its inquiries, I cannot see 1 my way clear to .attend personally .at my own expense in Wellington on the date .named, especially in. reference toil matter in which I claim to lie in no , wise concerned. I desire to say with the utmost emphasis, that whatever our personal views may bo relative to tho conduct of the Wairau election, or the decision of the Court in the election petition case, neither I nor the other petitioners have been in any way party or privy to the publication of ; the letter of March 25 referred to, and they and I disclaim any responsibility in the matter. I have the honour to be, sir, Tour obedient servant, WILLIAM CARfi. Mr. William Sinclair. The chairman intimated to Mr. Sinclair that tho committee did not proposa to consider the merits of the rase. William Sinclair, solicitor, of Blenheim, sworn, said that he had written tho\original letter to William Carr, of Blenheim, and he sent a copy of the letter to Mr. W. A. Veitch, M.P. Tho covering letter was marked "Private and confidential." He read the covering letter: i Thinking yon may, as a member of tho Reform Party, be interested in ~;,thq trial of the Wairau election petition recently held in Blenheim, I be'g to enclose a copy of the report on tho case, in which I was engaged as counsel, for the petitioners. Im addition to the report,, suggestions are'made as to the methods uo bo adopted to have the judgment of Williams and Chapman, J. J., reviewed by the Privy Council, in the interest of tho purity of elections. Tho whole subject will bo brought before Parliament next session. Ho stated that he, proposed to contend that both the letter and tho enclosure were privileged. The letter written to Carr was' privileged because it was written by a solicitor to_his client. The letter written to .Mr. Veitch as a member of Parliament was also privileged. He submitted that he .had a right as an elector to write to a member of Parliament on a matter _.of supreme public importance— tho purity of elections. He had intended to suggest that an Act of Parliament: be passed to have the judgment of- the Election Court reviewed by the Privy Council, not with the object of displacing Mr. M'Callum because that was impcssible, but to determine whether the decision of tho learned judges was in accord with the law of England. He had thought that the judgment was erroneous in law, and that it ought to be referred to the Privy Council. He submitted that he was justified in writing to any member of Parliament setting forth tho facts and urging that, thi.s should be done. If ho were certain that he would be heard at the Bar of tho House .ho would not inflict Ilia arguments on tho Committee. ■ A Covering Letter, Mr. Sinclair said he hoped to have an opportunity of calling Mr. Veitch on tho question of publication. To Mr. Skerrett: Ho wrote tho letter to Carr, and made several copies, every one of which ho signed. He had sent out. 39 copies to 39 members of Parliament, and. among them Mr. Veitch, and in every case, a covering- letter was sent marked 'private and confidential." He was not instructed to make a report to Mr. Carr, but ho deemed it his duty to do so. Up to the date of the writing of the letter his retainer from Carr had not been withdrawn, ' Mr. Skerrett: J understand your act in Forwarding this letter was your own act, independent of the instruction of vour :liont? _ . Mr. Sinclair: Yes; quite so. Mr. Skerrett: Did you have anv initruction to take this'step? \ \ Mr. Sinclair: Up till this time I had iiot received such instruction. Mr. Sinclair then said ho wished to call Mr. eitch. The publication sought to bo proved was pnbheation to Mr. Veitch ind ho had authorities to show thjit tho ending of, a letter marked "private and :onfidentiaP' was not publication. Mr. Mnclair-went on to explain whv he supposed that Mr; Veitch had given the let-, lor to AlivM'Gallmn. He had sent it to ul the d 9 'members who voted against the jrovernmcnt'in-'the I'ebruarv session, and Mr. M'Callum had said that he did not receive it from a member of the. Reform ayty. This made it clear .that Mr. \eitch was the member who gave it to aim. 1 What Mr, Veitch Did. William Andrew Veitch . was sent for, md duly sworn. Mr. Sinclair: Did you receive a letter from me ro the Wairau election petition? Mr. Vcitoh.: I don't know who you are.' Mr. Sinclair: My name is Sinclair. Mr._ Veitch then admitted having re:eived a. letter signed "William Sinclair." Mr. Sinclair: What did you do with it? Mr. Veitch: I kept that letter; I didn't Jiva it to anybody. Mr. Sinclair: What did you do with the' letter addressed to yourself. Mr. Veitch: I destroyed it. Mr. Sinclair: If you received'a. letter marked "private and confidential," and you don't, wish to treat it as private and lonfidential, is it not your duty to return it to the . writer? Mr. Veitch: No. , •Mr. Sinolair: Those are not your ethics? ?f 1 '• \ e itch: I think I destroyed it. Mr. Sinolair asked whether witness had handed the enclosure to M'Callum. •Mr. Veitch: I think that is my business. ' . <.;:Mr. Sinclair asked the chairman to rule. , Thexh,airman Wo witness): I think you should answer that question. ''Mr. Veitch: Very well, then; I did hand the letter, to Mr. M'Callum. Richard M'Callum, member for Wairau. related tho circumstances under which lie had received the letter from Mr. Voifcch. It w.as at the supnpr- ndjournment, Hie day before he bronsht the matter up in the House as a matter of urgency. He had not looked at the confidential portion of the letter. Ho had previously heard of it from other members. He did, not think that libellous statements could ever be protected by the mark "private and confidential." Mr. Sinclair's Amument. Mr. Sinclair stated that'before he was finally dealt with, he desired to be heard in some place, preferably at the Bar of the House, on tho merits of the case.. • The chairman informed him that it was not within the committee's order of reference to doai with tho merits, but they could report to the House, that ho desired to be heard. Mr, Sinclair then went on with his argument. He contended that the statemonta made did i.ot concern Mr. M'Callum as a member of tho House, but as an elector or a candidate. The Election Court was investigating Mr. M'Callum's conduct as a candidate for Parliament. The letter to Carr was privileged. Ho urged, also, that the sending of the letter to Veitch was not publication, because th« letter w:i« marked "private and confidential." It was the receiver's

duty to trent such a letter as conlidenlial, or to destroy it. He thought the judgment of the Election Court was erroneous, ami unfortunately there was no appeal from it. Hi' had no animus against Mr. M'Callum, but ho tiiatight it was desirable that the judgment should be referred to the Privv Council. He had sent tho letter to nmmWs of the lteforru party, because lie had thought: it well to deal with the party opposed to Mr. M'Callum in Parliament. He intended to carry the matter further. He would present a petition to Parliament on the subject. He reiterated that ;i confidential condition had been established between himself and Xlr. Yeitcli, and that he was within his rights in drawing the attention of members to what lmd occurred. Remarks by Mr, Skeiretl. Mr. C. 1\ Skerrett argued that even ill a Court of law this publication could not have been privileged. In mure than one caso it accused Mr. M'Callum of peijury, and it was well established that privilege could not be used as a cloak for imputing any person. He did not accept Mr. Sinclair's assurance that he was not actuated by personal feeling against M'Callum; the terms of tho letter wore the best guide the committee could have as to that. The expression "private and confidential" had 110 magic at all. Olio had to take account of the relationship of the parties, and tho object of the letter before these words could have any effcct. The witnesses and counsel then left tho room, the chairman having announced that the commutes wished to deliberate.