THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 7 September 1901, Page 4

THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

[our parliamentary reporter.]

Wellington, This Day. ‘ The breach of privilege - case was an hour’s bandying of works. Enough was said to show there will be much recrimination on Tuesday. The main difference was about whether Mr Cohen’s refusal of evidence should be taken separate or with the Committee report in the course of discussion.

Seddon, arguing against separate treatment, said lie knew Mr Cohen, and was certain (that he would maintain his refusal; that he is an honorable man, a (journalist who takes a pride in his profession, and like all journalists, is trap to tho tradition of protecting the source of information. He had seen many journalists under pressure in Courts and elsewhere; but lie bad never known a single Case of yielding. “ You may,” concluded the Premier, “ bring Mr Cohen to the bar, or you may put him in the tower, you will get nothing more out of him than you have, and matter will be no forwarder. He said that on Monday proposals would have to be submitted with the double purpose of vindicating the position of the House in regard to witnesses and maintaining the standing orders. As to the contention that this was an unusually heinous offence, it was, he said, the habit of members to attend Committee meetings in order to divulge proceedings to the press. Ho made a sensation by declaring that one witness before the Privilege Committee had told him that he wanted publicity of the matters before the Mines Committee and that he had tried for publicity. Mr Seddon said he regarded that person as the culprit.