'BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.'

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1869, 1 October 1913, Page 4

'BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.'

PAYMENT OF LAW COSTS.

LATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS FRIENDS. A STATEMENT CHALLENGED. SIR JOSEPH WARD said that he wished to raise a question of privilege ia reference to a statement made by Mr. Harris, member for Waitemata, at l'almerston North on the previous evening, reported in a local newspaper as follows: —'Tie (Mr. Harris) quoted from a return of law costs paid to legal firms for w'ork under the Lands for Settlement Act. Out of a public expenditure of £il,'3l9'the Findlay Brothers rcceivod £6959. This, he declared, was downright corruption, and the time for such iniquity had passed. It was political 'graft.' " Reflection on tho Ward Government. Sir Josoph Ward continued that tho member for Waitemata was in his seat in tho House, and he wanted to take an opportunity of . raising the subject. The assumption conveyed was that Sir John Findlay, when a member of the Administration, received amounts which had been referred to as corruption and graft. Sir John Fiudlay, when he was a member of tho Ministry, and of tho Ward Government, never received a shilling in the way suggested. The wholo amount paid to the firm of which Sir John Findlay was a member after he joined the Government was £467 13s. 4d., and presumably he thought it a very regrettable thing that there should bo such suggestions on the part of responsible people in this country in 'order to gratify political spleen on men on the other side of party politics in this country. Ho understood that this was intended as a reflection on the Ward Government, and proposed to stato what) tho facts were. He had already said that from the time Sir John Findlay took office the total amount paid over to the Findlays' offico for work that had been done amounted to £467 13s. 4d. Of that amount Sir John Findlay, even if the work had been done before ho took office, could not, under tho Disqualification Act, havo received' any portion. It was perfectly well known that responsible. men on cither side of politics liad in this country for years past been employed by tho Government in a legal capacity. No suggestion had been made from that, sido of the Houso that anything dishonourable or improper had been done or that there liau been corruption or. graft. Legal Activities. . Tho total paid to Sir John Findlay's firm was £1564 155., of which sum Sir John Findlay never received one shilling. If that wero deducted from the £6900 odd paid to the firm it would leavo £5336, which was the payment over a period of ten years for services in connection with the land acquisition of this country, which at that time was being fought over the greater portion of tho country with great bitterness and much partiality and extraordinary determination by tho largo land-holders. There was no reflection upon them, but tho land-holders did attempt to get tho • highest possible prico for their land. The Government had to go upon tho principle of doing what was right by tho poojlo, and, seeing that tho legal representatives of tho land-holders were there, tho Government had to obtain these properties at as low a prico as possible. By tho legal activities a saving of about £100,000 was effected in tho prico of ono estate alone. Mr. Massey: I have not eoen tho report which you arc' reading from, but I distinctly recollect Mr. Harris saying that he 'intended no reflection upon Dr. Findlay or Mr. Dalzioll. It was a very cstimablo firm. Mr. Witty. What did he intend then? Sir Joseph Ward: Let mo point out that if ho made that statement and tho other statement then it justifies a connection between that firm when ho discussed them with ( corruption and graft and iniquity. Surely a statement or that kind carries its own meaning. Necessary Advice. Continuing, Sir Joseph Ward said the ■ Government was obliged to secure legal advice against tho landholders. What would have been said if they had not secured at least as capable a legal representative as those on the other side? It was distinctly unfair to make these charges agaiiist Sir John Findlay, particularly as it was known that on many occasions Sir John Findlayi could havo received bigger fees, from the other side. Tho statements made by the member for. Waitemata wero malicious and unfair, and if that aort of thincc was

to go on ho did not think a member of Parliament would be safe.

the Primo Minister: Havo you forgotten Royd Garlick? (Laughter.) Sir Joseph Ward: I don't want to introduce Royd Garlick into this discussion at all. Another aspect of tho case, he continued, was that Sir John Findlay had inado some very great alterations in connection with tho legal work of tho country. Tho reform of tho Grown Law Ofiico meant that a great doul of legal work was taken away from various practitioners in Wellington. amongst whom wero Findlay Bros. Sir John I<mdlay was responsible for tho introduction or this system which effected a considerable saving to the country. Yot Sir Jolm Findlay was now blamed in connection with legitimate payments mado for a legitimate purpose, and reflections wero made upon him by tho lion, moinber for Waiteniata, presumably for party purposes. Speaking from tho point of view of tho Ward Government ho would give the charges of corruption and graft as complete and absolutely unoqmvocal a denial as possible. It was not only a wretched, but an outrageous, thing.

Uncertain What To Do. "Now, I do not know what I am entitled to do. Mr. Speaker," said Sir Joseph Ward amidst mild Government laughter. Mr. SPEAKER said that the alleged breach of privilege must bo read by the Clerk and a subsequent motion moved.

Sir Joseph Ward: I do not want to take up the time of the House. I simplv wanted to raise tho question. Mr. Massoy: Wo have given you an opportunity.Sir Joseph Ward added that he would go no further ,at the time, but he thought the lion, member for Waitematti should get up in his place and withdraw his remarks. (Opposition hear, hears.) _ That was the propor and honourablo tiling to do. There was no doubt about that. MR. KARRIS IN REPLY. STANDS BY HIS STATEMENT. Mr. A. HARRIS (Waitemata) said that since this matter had been brought up by tho Leader of the Opposition, ho Would like to have .an opportunity of saying a few words. "Allow me to say," he continued, "that I did make this statement last night. I read the list of payments inado on account of 'land compulsorily acquired for settlement. The return showed payments of law costs to D. M. Findlay, Findlay, Dalzioll, and Co., Dalziell and Findlav, and Findlay and Dalziell." Ho had in his hand the return laid on "the table of the House on Friday last. His object in calling attention to tho return was based upon the fact that he considered it right that the peoplo should know whero public money was spent. Ho was of opinion that the late Government were unwise in giving theso law costs in the way they did to their political friends. He was quite aware that many of these payments were made prior to tho time when Sir Jolm Findlay became a member of tho Government. At the same time members of tho firm wore friends of tho then Government.

Sir Joseph Ward: Do you suggest that the Government should employ only its political opponents? Share and Sharo Alike. Mr. Harris: No, I say it should bo share and share aliko. The return showed that the late Government expended in law costs in connection with the. Land for Settlements Act, exclusive of disbursements, £11,000 odd. Of this amount £7000 had gone to D. M. Findlay, Findlay, Dalziell, and Co., Dalziell arid Findlay, and Findlay and Dalziell. Mr. Harris was going on to quote further from tho return. Mr. Russell Objects. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL raised a point of order, and asked whether members on that side of the llouso would be allowed to discuss tho matter from tho same point of view as tho honourable gentleman was discussing it from. _ lie was placing the matter on an entirely different 'footing from the one Sir Joseph Ward had placed it on. (Government laughter.) He wished to ask if the same liberty was to bo allowed to Opposition members. If tho honourable gentloinan proposed to defend his position iu regard to what was said on the previous night, and what was said by Sir Joseph Ward, he had 110 objection, but if the honourable mcmbor proposed to put the return in Hansard ho would object. No Breach of Privilege. The PRIME MINISTER said that thero was really nothing before the Houso. Both tho Loader of the Opposition and tho member for Waitemata had spoken by tho iudulgenco of the House. The honourable gentleman (Sir Joseph Ward) knew perfectly well that 110 breach of privilege was involved, but lie (the Prime Minister) felt that 110 was entitled to make his statement both as ex-Leader of the Houso and as Leader of the Opposition. No objection had been offered to his doing so, and no objection should be offered to tho member for Waitemata speaking an reply. The SPEAKER said that Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Harris had both spoken Ivy tho iudulgenco of the House. He had thought that as Sir Joseph Ward had made his statement it was only rijrht that tho member for Waitemata should bo allowed to reply, and the matter should then end. It was entirely a matter for the House. _ Mr. Russell said that if the 11011. member wished to defend himself he would not object. Mr. Fisher: Why do you object to tho return? Most Impolitic. Mr. Harris said that he would re-, frain from reading tho return which seemed to be unpalatable to members on the other side. Ho accepted full responsibility' for what he had said 011 tho previous night. In his opinion it was most impolitic on the of tho late Government to reward their political friends as thoy had done. Ho did not wish to excuse or defend his position. Ho contended that he had acted in tho public interest. A Motion Dropped. The Hon. R. M'KENZIE (Motueka) lit this stage moved that the Houso express its regret that a member had accused an ox-raember of Parliament of corruption. Mr. Speaker: Aro you moving a breach of privilege? Mr. M'-Kenzie: Yes. He declared that Sir John Findlay liad had nothing to do with tho legal business mentioned while he was a member of Parliament. Further, lie stated that Mr. D. M. Findlay had 110 connection .with Sir .lomi Findlay's firm. Tho Hon. W. H. BERRIES asked whether it was possiblo to have a breach of privilege not directed against a member of tho Houso. If they were going to liavo broaches of privilege moved against- people outside the Houso thoy would never reach tho end of the session. It had always been the rule that a breach of privilege must be directed against a member of the House, not against a gentleman outside tho House altogether over whom the House had no control.

Tlio Prime Minister was cnlliug tho Speaker's attention to the delinition of breach of privilege when Mr. M'Ken?.ic, us lie approached the Clerk to liaud in his motion, said that ho was Hot moving a breach of privilege. The Prime Minister: May 1 ask, then, Sir, what is before the House? Mr. Speaker: Tliero is nothing before tho House,

This ottdod tho disouasion,