ELECTION INQUIRY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2452, 4 May 1915, Page 6

! MR. REED CROSS-EXAMINED . MORE ABOUT UPPER HOUSE SEAT COURT RESERVES DECISION (By Telcsraph—Press Association.) Kalkohe, May 3. The hearing of the Bay of Islandß election petition was concluded to-day. Mr. Justice Chapman and Mr. Justice Hosking presided. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. P. Levi and Mr. W. P. Endean, appeared for petitioners, and Mr. J. It. Reed, K.C., with him Mr. R. M'Veagh, for the respondent, Vernon Herbert Reed, M.P. The respondent was cross-examined by Sir John Findlay. Witness stated that all he desired to secure was Wilkinson's mere retirement. Ho was not responsible for the offer of a seat in the Legislative Council being made to Wilkinson. Witness told Johnsoir. he was to assure Wilkinson he would g>et the seat if he/ said he would accopt it. Sir John Ejindlay.: Then a definite offer was made?— You know hotter thj.n I, Sir John. '

Sir John: Don't impute any knowledge to me.' (Laughter.) Witness said direct offeis were never made, but he would have got it had he accepted. Witness paid Johnson's travelling expenses, as Johnson said he could not afford the cost. Witness had no concern in the offer of the Upper House except that he desired Wilkinson's withdrawal, but he had a concern in the offer to retire. The second offer was from .witness to Mr. Massey. , Letters to Mr. Massey., ■ Letters from Johnson to Mr. Massey showed that on April 29 Johnson stated that Reed Wished him to see "Wilkinson regarding certain proposals that would simplify the existing position, and that Reed stated that Mr. Massey was. in favour of the proposals. If Mr. Klassoy desired the writer to act as a medium he was asked to telegraph the word "Go," as ho wanted the Premier's sanction. • Johnson received no reply. In a letter dated May 10, Johnson Tyr-ote to Mr. Massey saying that Reed desired him to rnako certain definite offers which Reed said had the Premier's approval. Wilkinson was willing, but his supporters wore not. At that time John, son wrote that Wilkinson would poll better than. Reed. On May 12 Mr. Massey replied to the original letter regretting that owing to his absence from Wellington the letter did not reach him earlier. He found it impossible to reply by telegram ■ seeing that he had to consult his colleagues in Cabinet, before Reed's proposal could be agreed to, and that he had not had an opportunity of doing so owing to their aDsenoe. Mr. Massey added that he would be glad to see some arrangement made to prevent, both candidates from going to the poll. That was all he could-say at that time. ' Sir John: This letter distinctly refer» to offers as your proposals?— Yes. And that Cabinet did not agreo?— Yes, The Prime Minister always make« appointments to the Council, : but always consults'his colleagues.' Previoiiu Governments acted similarly. ■ Sir John: The methods of the present Govewiment are wholly and entirely different? —Not in that respect. Sir John: Then Johnson's annoyance with you was not unnatural?— I thought he should have made soiiie further inquiry regarding the consent -o£ Cabinet.

The previous, offer of a seat to Johnson was witness's idea. Wilkinson was his second selection. In 1909 witness suggested! Wilkinson's name to (sir Joseph Ward when he found there orae not much chance of getting Mr. Haaston appointed. Witness secured 50 votes at Oroua, where Wilkinson lived, which was two more than those received by WilEinson. Witness could not swear that he did not use 6ucli words at Peria as 1 "It would be worth a'good deal to me 3 Wilkinson stood down." If he used the words they were.simply casual words. He could not remember any particular conversation 1 with Jacentho when departing from Peria. It was absurd for him (witness) to have said he would be . back next day—it was quite impossible, owing to bis lengthy itinerary. He' did not challenge the honesty of Jacentho's evidence. To Mr. Reed, K.C.: Wilkinson brought up the matter of the offers early in September, and capital was being made of_ them. That was the worst feature witness bad to combat in the campaign. . •

A Misunderstanding. John Charles Johnson, settler, of Kauri, was called by Sir John Findlay, who desired to examine him in'rqlation to the mention of definilte offers in the letters to Mr. Massey. Mr. Heed, K.C., strongly objected, as it would really amount' to reopening the case, and the giving of evidence in rebuttal, which would place him in an unfair position. Mr. Justice Hosking (to Sir John •Findlay): Is it not your wi6h to. get the exact words of the instructions tbqt Reed gave Johnson? You want to get the terras of agency? Sir John Findlay agreed that that was so. • His Honour: That goes right into the case. It is quite a different thing from, telling what the nature of the offer was. Sir John did not agree to that proposition. He understood that when he was granted permission to call Johnson he was to examino him as to the contents of the letteTS.__ Mr. Reed said tha't was_ not so. After a long discussion it was. agreed to consult the notes of the official reporter for the Electoral Department, Mr. Fred Weston. After these had been referred to, Mr. Justice Chapman said it seemed unfortunate that the.question should liaifo arisen in that way. There appeared to be 6ome misunderstanding as to what exactly had been understood: There was some limitation, but thoy had failed to note exactly what the limitation was. In the circumstances the Court felt that the safest course was-'to allow the questions. Witness stated that "Reed told him to tell Wilkinson ha could have a seat in the Upper House if he prefernjd.it to fighting the election. _ Hb knew that Mr. Massey. was tho origin of the offer. Reed distinctly told witness that Mr. Massey was behind the offer. To Mr. Reed: After he left respondent he took notes of the offers. Hie notes had been destroyed long. ago. Reed said he would assist Wilkinson at the by-election. Mr. Reed was ul'owed to recall reapondent, who stated that it was not correct that he undertook to assist Wilkinson at tlio by-election which would follow his resignation. He could not have fulfilled such an undertaking as his support was personal. Mr. Reed's Address. On the close oF tho evidence, Mr. Reed, K.C., addressed their Honours. Counsel remarked on tho novelty of tho points in the case. _ Petitioners had six weeks, he said, in which to search for charges. _ They, laid nine charges of which six had beeu abandoned. Of the three remaining charges one icferred to bribery through an amendment, and tho other two alleged technical cases of bribery. Tho inquiry revealed a combination between the Opposition and tlio defeated Government candidate. There could not linvo bccn ,phv nUempl. at corrupt practice iu the. electorate by. the successful

candidate. There could be no corrupt practico without a corrupt intention. Mr. Justice Hosking: If thero were no corrupt intention, can the election not be sot aside? Mr. Reed: If the act of an ageut were corrupt, it could bo. The evidence in Jacentho's case was very slight, and suggested that Jacentho, from tho personal motivo that the licensing legislation should not be changed, practically interviewed Samuels on his own initiative. It was inconceivable that the candidate would have been so foolish as to permit the approacu by anyone of Wilkinson as lus agent. The parties were at arma' length. Matters considered private and confidential had been revealed after Wilkinson bad refused the offers. How could it be suggested that he would, with tho payment of his expenses, be persuaded to retire? There was no evidence of agency on the part of Jacentho. It was left entirely to the' Prime Minister to say who was to bo tho representative of the party.- It was' certainly not known that Wilkinson would be a candidate, and Mr , Mas soy was endeavouring to satisfy him. The Premier asked which he would prefer—an Upper House appointment or to contest the election. Wilkinson regarded that as an otter, but ho left the matter in the hands of his supporters. There was nothing frrong in the endeavour of a party to prevent vote splitting. Underlying the action of both Mr.. Massey and respondent was the desiro to help the party. All that was done was done before Wilkinson was announced as a- candidate. At that time an offer of money would not have ai-' fectod the position had a section of the English Act been in force in New Zealand. How could it be termed a corrupt act if a person fully qualified were appointed to tho Upper House 'whoso agent was Johnson? He might have been the agent of Mr. Massey or of respondent, but was he not in the case stflely the ageht of Mr. Massey? He would not have moved one inch for respondent, to whom he was personally opposed". He was only- prepared to act with' the consent of "Mr. Massey. Mr. Justice -Hosking: Then Reed was .only the equivalent of a telegraph messenger? Mr. Reed, K.C.: Yes,' or a telegraph pole.. (Laughter.) . Mr. Justice Chapman: Johnson's expenses were paid by Reed. Mr. Reed replied that as. Mr. Massey had aslced respondent to get Johnson to see Wilkinson, and Jolmson could not afford the trip, Reed took the view that he had_ no alternative. ■ Mr. Justice Hosking: Then Reed acted as Mr. Massey's agent, and could recover from him? Mr. Reed: That is the legal position.

Argument for Petitioners. Sir John iWlay said that the Judges ■were asked to say whether it'was legal for the party in the ascendancy for the time being to remove opposition from that party's candidate. by giving an opponent a seat in the Upper House' involving the payment of the public purse of at least £1400 and other emoluments._ He a'fgued that it was far from being a legitimate or proper thing where parties came before a democratic constituency that the Prime Minister, the sitting member, or anyone else should endeavour "to remove from the contest by means of a bribe of a seat in the Upper House, a candidate who threatened a supporter of the ascendant party at tliat ■ election. The principle profoundly affected future elections in the country. The retirement of Wilkinson at least indirectly secured the return of Reed. It- was impossible to escape the conclusion that if Wilkinson retired the return of Heed was as liumanly certain as it could possibly be. Tho appointment itself was not the bribe as it was: made by the Governor. The offence would be complete when Wilkinson agreed to accept on the terms mentioned. The office need not be in the gift of the bribe at all.. It was the. offer to procure. Johnson believed that the offers were made by Reed, but had Mr. Massey's approval. The man .who could say whose proposals they were was Mr. Massey, and that letter partly told Johnson and the Court , tlmt Reed's proposals had not received the approbation of Cabinet. Counsel submitted that what transpired- was, that Reed impressed upon Johnson that he (Reed) waß in a position to assure Wilkinson, that he would receive an appointment to the Upper House. Reed could not procure the seat, but he was a party to the, promise to endeavour to procure the seat for Wilkinson. Even if Reed did . not add that lie. would work to secure Wilkinson's- return yet it was proved plainly that Johnson told Wilkinson that it. was a part of the offer ooming from Reed, and consequently to that extent ,on the cases Reed was liable. Counsel did not suggest that Reed was a party to any improper intention that liis agent Jacentho should make any offer of money payment to Wilkinson for his. expenss, but that made no difference. The Court had frequently pointed out that hardship. Without ft strict rule of agency tho door might bp,opened-to corrupt practices of a very serious character indeed. The Court adjourned its 'decision which will, in all probability be given at Auckland on Friday morning.