GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 416, 12 October 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Electric Telegraph.] (From a correspondent of the Press.) HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES. Wellington, October 11. With the exception of the Tairua investigation and privilege question, the business this afternoon has been almost formal. Mr Thomson obtained leave to introduce a Bill which was read a first time, providing that all persons who purchase native lands shall, in addition to the price of the land paid to the natives, pay also as much per acre to ihe State previous to the issue of a Crown grant The Equitable Interests Bill was discharged,

The following second readings were agreed to: —Imbecile Passengers Act Amendment Bill ; Invercargill Public Offices Site Bill; Wellington Reclaimed Land Act Amendment Bill ; Stamp Duties Bill ; Goldfields Act Amendment Bill, No 3, passed ; and New Zealand University Reserves Bill, third reading. The debate on the San Francisco contract is postponed till to-night. PRIVILEGE CASE. There were full galleries, and the greatest interest in the threatened privilege case as three o’clock arrived. The speaker brought under the notice of the House the resolution of Friday re Mr Bridges, and intimated that the latter had requested to be heard by counsel. The (Speaker intimated that counsel could only advise Mr Bridges at the bar. Mr Macandrew thought it due to the members of the House to be informed before proceeding further with the matter, that in his opinion all the pressure put upon the General Government in relation to the Dunedin and Port Chalmers railway, which he understood was the real question which Mr Bridges was going to deal with, was pressure on the part of the Provincial Government of Otago. [Hear.] This pressure was put by the Provincial Government upon the General Government, because the former believed the purchase of the line was necessary in the public interests. It had been currently reported by the Man in the Street that the Superintendent of Otago had an interest in this railway, hence the pressure put upon the Colonial Government. He thought it right to state that not only was that report without the slightest foundation, but it was utterly and absolutely false. It was very likely that it would be found that Mr Bridges had got hold of some mare’s nest. As regarded the members of the Colonial Government at the proper time and place, he would be prepared to show that the sale was highly in the public interest. He as Superintendent was particularly anxious to see the line purchased. Hon E. Richardson was glad to hear the explanation of the member for Port Chalmers because the negotiations for the purchase of that railway had devolved upon himself (Mr Richardson). "He could safely say that the only pressure put on the General Government was by the member for Port Chalmers himself. Mr Reid said the summoning of Mr Bridges tp the bar, and going through the process consequent upon that was a waste of valuable time during which the House should be attending to its proper functions. He thought the best course to pursue would be to pass an Act indemnifying Mr Bridges, and remit him back to the public accounts committee.

The Speaker pointed out that the House already determined that an enquiry should be instituted why Mr Bridges refused to answer questions founded upon evidence, which the accounts committee declared to be a grave imputation against the character of their public men. Mr J. E. Brown understood the position to be this. The accounts committee reported to the House, asking either that a certain witness should be treated for contempt or indemnified, so that any communications he might have to make before the committee should be privileged, in order that he might be protected from any consequences by reason of giving that evidence. If he was correct in his premises, he held that it was the duty of the House to consider first, whether the witness was to give evidence he threatened he was able to give, and that he should be protected under an Indemnity Act for so doing. Under rule 219, a witness was protected to a certain extent, but there was difficulty ; if once a witness were indemnified, he could make a statement of a most reckless character—| Mr Parker :He would be liable for perjury]—and he would only be liable for perjury upon proceedings by that House. Such proceedings did not give the parties actually injured by such a statement before the committee any redress, because it was hopeless to expect that the House would prosecute upon what these persons might consider perjury. The witness should be in exactly the same position as a witness before the Supreme Court. If he made false statements, he should be liable for perjury at the instance of the persons whom he had maligned. Mr Bridges [was then called to the bar, attended by Mr Travers, his counsel. Having been sworn by the Clerk of Parliament, the Speaker categorically put to him the questions which he declined to answer before the committee, receiving precisely similar answers. The Speaker —Why do you refuse to answer these questions ? Mr Bridges —Because I believe I should render myself liable to legal proceedings for libel. The Speaker—lf examined before the committee, will you still persist in your refusal to answer these questions on those grounds ? Mr Bridges— -Yes. Mr Bunny —Will Mr Bridges object if an Act of Indemnity is passed by this Legislature ? Mr Bridges—l should have no objection to answer questions if properly indemnified against any consequences. Mr Bunny urged that the immediate duty of the Government was to bring in an act of indemnity. Mr Bridges — l am desirous of making a statement which may prevent this House taking any farther steps in the matter [Mr Travers then handed him a paper from which he read as follows]: —“ On Saturday last I received information of which 1 had previously been in entire ignorance, which has led me to the conclusion that the opinion I expressed before the committee to the effect that pressure had been put upon the Government by the Bank of New Zealand had been formed on erroneously and insufficient ground. Therefore, I desire to retract the whole of my evidence upon that subject.” Mr Reid asked whether Mr Bridges made this request before the committee to withdraw the answers he had given to certain questions or that if he had to reply again would he have done so differently, Mr Bridges— Yes, I did.

Before retiring while the House deliberated, Mr Bridges made this further statement—“ I wish to point out that the opinion 1 expressed before the committee was only upon information which 1 did not know whether I could prove or not; it was not volunteered but given «in reply to questions, but under the belief that it was founded upon good grounds. Mr McGlashan mentioned in corroboration of what had fallen from the member for Port Chalmers, that he had the authority of one of the contractors for the Port railway for saying that the pressure was put upon the

contractors by the Provincial Government to sell, and they would have got £50,000 more if they had not sold at that time. The contractors would have been prepared to give £so,ooo—[chorus of voices—“ £20,000 ”J to have got off the bargain immediately after it was made. Mr Reid said it appeared to him, after the statement made by Mr Bridges, it was a work of supererogation to pass a Bill of indemnity because the House had been informed by Mr Bridges that he had made a statement upon wrong information, and that from something since come to his knowledge he had in the most emphatic manner withdrawn all the statements connected with that matter. He was of opinion that they were carrying the thing much too far. Mr Bunny considered that the House should proceed with the inquiry in justice to the public men of the colony. Mr Shephard considered it due to the House that the matter should be probed to the very bottom. Mr Bridges had come before the committee making, without due reflection, statements, and now wished to be freed from the consequences of having given utterance to false and scandalous libels. When such libels were attempted to be brought against the public men of the colony, the House should not accept a mere retraction, but insist upon the evidence not only which Mr Bridges could bring forward, but from everyone who could throw any light upon the subject. Every paper, every book, should be placed at the committee’s disposal, which should make a thoroughly searching investigation, and if there was no foundation for the statements should unmistakeably declare so.

Hon Major Atkinson entirely disagreed with the member for Taieri. The matter was far too important and serious to be allowed to drop. “Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion,” and as it was perfectly plain that a serious accusation had been brought against the public men of the colony, he therefore submitted it was the duty of the House to probe the matter to the bottom. Retraction by Mr Bridges was made with reservation. His anxiety appeared not to be to withdraw the accusations so much as to free himself from the consequences that might fall upon himself personally through having made those accusations. If Mr Bridges had withdrawn the accusations the House might rightly permit the whole matter to drop, but the proper course now would be to at once pass an Indemnity Bill, and secure Mr Bridges from any consequences except perjury, and to remit him back to the committee for a thorough investigation into the whole circumstances of the case. The Government would have at once brought in such an Act, but after consultation with,the Speaker found the constitutional course was for jbe Government not to interfere until the House had expressed some opinion upon the matter. [Cheers.]

Mr Fitzherbebt endorsed the action proposed by the Treasurer. Indemnity should not be only extended to the individual named, but should extend to every person in a position to give evidence on the subject. It was plain that the matter could not be left in its present unsatisfactory and ambiguous position.

The Speaker said he had no doubt of the power of the House to compel a witness to answer, provided the answers were not selfcriminating.

Mr Sheehan suggested that it would be better to remove all doubts, and lay down unmistakeably that a witness should be freed from all legal consequences except perjury. On Mr Bridges being again called to the bar, the Speaker informed him that the House had given consideration to his statement, but were not satisfied with the position in which matters stood. Therefore they insisted on such an enquiry being carried on as would enable the Accounts Committee to prove the truth or falsehood of the imputations, he (Mr Bridges) had male. The House had, however, determined that he (Mr Bridges) should be effectually protected in respect of any evidence he might give to prove his statements or explanations of the grounds upon which he based those statements. He might withdraw, but would not be discharged from attendance until it was determined what course would be taken. When the Act of indemnity was passed in both Houses, he would have again to give his attendance before the Accounts Committee. Mr Bridges and his counsel then withdrew, and the House passed on to other business. On the San Francisco resolutions, Hon Major Atkinson moves the following amendment—“ That in the opinion of this House, the annual charge imposed on the revenue of the colony for a mail service ought not to exceed £40,000, and it is the duty of the Government to enter into negotiation to procure such modifications of the terms and conditions of the contract, subject to future ratification by the House, as will effect that object.” PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE. [By Electric Telegraph.] (From a correspondent of the Press,") The evidence and appendices to the Accounts Committee’s report occupy thirty-nine pages of foolscap, Mr Murdoch, inspector of the Bank of New Zealand, was examined at some length. He said, among other things, that there was a safe limit of relation between the deposits and circulation of a bank varying from 20 to 25 per cent. In the case of the Bank of New Zealand, the proportion was always larger than was considered a safe limit. As to the effect of the deposit of the unrequired portion of the loan with the bank, the following was the examination : Question —Was it not the fact that the Bank of New Zealand, prior to the floating of the loan, did bring pressure upon their ordinary customers, that is to say, did not afford the same facilities as they were prepared to do after the floating of the loan 1 Answer—Certainly not. Question—The same facilities were afforded before as after ? Answer—Certainly, Of course there are individual cases in which pressure was brought to bear, but the reason in these cases had no reference tu the position of the Government and the Bank. Cases are constantly occurring such as I have mentioned, but beyond these no pressure that I am aware of was put upon the customers of the Bank of New Zealand. Question —If it is the general impression that it was so, is it an erroneous impression ’ Answer—Certainly. Question —You are not aware that any of the managers stated that as a reason for

withholding accommodation that would have been given under ordinary circumstances ? Answer—l am not aware of it. As to the lodgment of the balance of the loan with the Bank of New Zealand in the terms of the agreement, as stated by Sir J. Vogel, Mr Murdoch’s examination ran as follows : Question —The committee wish to know whether it would have been in contravention of that agreement if the Government instead of investing the money in Treasury bills had deposited a portion of it with some Bank other than your own ? Answer —At the time the agreement was made, it was not contemplated that the Government would be so largely in credit as they are by the proceeds of the four millions loan, and therefore I do not suppose that such a thing occurred either to the Treasurer or the Bank. Under the strict reading of the agreement I should say it would be in contravention of the agreement if such a deposit were made, but if it was the desire of the Government to fix a limit to the credit balance which the Bank should hold, I think the Bank would be willing to agree to it. Question —Supposing the Bank bad chosen to stand on its strict rights, could it have demanded that all these sums should be placed with it, and not with any other Bank ? Answer—l think I have already answered that. Under the strict interpretation of the agreement I do think that the Bank could have done so. Question —You have already said that you thought the Government would be justified in purchasing exchequer bills as a temporary investment with part of the money, instead of deposting it with the Bank of New Zealand 1 Answer—Yes. Question —Well, if instead of doing that they took a part of the money, not to open a new banking account but to lend to another banker on his receipt, would that be a violation of the agreement ? Answer—l cannot see any distinction between lending money to a bank on receipt and ope' ing a bank account. It would cer-, tainly be a lodgment of money with the bank, and therefore a contravention of the agreement. Question—Then supposing that the loan agents had lent the money to some private individual so wealthy as to make it perfectly secure, would there have been any objection to that 1 Answer —I do not think so. The Colonial Treasurer was examined, and one portion of his evidence ran thnslrr: tef Question—Supposing that it appears on the estimates that the amount of appropriations made by the Provincial Councils exceeds by a million and a half the estimated revenue, it will be competent for the House of Representatives now to exchange. the whole of the authorisation which it has already made, and fulfil these appropriations with the remainder of the loans instead ? Answer—Yes ; so I understand it. 1 Question —Might not that be regarded as breaking faith with the country. Supposing you were to rescind these votes and divert them to another purpose, would ’the result not be that some parts of the colony would have public works and others not ? Answer—Yes. Question —Then it is competent to do a thing and break faith in doing, it ? Answer—Y es. In regard to the raising cf the four millions loan the examination ran : , j Question —Has not the result shown that Sir J. Vogel’s course was the only one that a prudent financier could possibly take ? ; : Answer—Yes. Question —Because you see now that out of the four million loan in four months three millions are already spent, and you have only one million left to come and go upon, and therefore if yon had adopted the course proposed by the Crown Agents of taking up the loan in two operations, you would already have been in difficulties 1 Answer—Yes. Question —Did the circumstances of the colony in your opinion imperatively require that the whole of the four millions should be raised firm by Sir Julius Vogel 1 Answer—Yes. j Mr Bridges entered fully into what in. his opinion were the losses entailed upon the country by the arrangement with the Bank of New Zealand. In the course of his examination, the following occurred: — Question —Supposing that your directors had been placed in the same position by Sir J. Vogel as the Bank of New Zealand was placed in, that is to say receiving an assurance that £1,500,000 would remain for six months, do you consider that notwithstanding that limitation the rate would have been much more favorable ? Answer—Much more favorable.. Question —Notwithstanding the youth of the Bank, they would have been able to see that financial operations based on that assurance were made good. - •*- Answer—Undoubtedly f Question —Supposing then that a. similar offer had been made to place £1,500,000 with the National Bank, not for six months certain, but with the assurance that, so far as then known, it would be left for six months, what rate in your opinion could have been obtained on that understanding ? ‘ > Answer—l think a fixed rate could have been obtained. At present you are not getting a fixed rate. You may. get only 1 per cent next month, as the rate varies with the Bank of England rate. I think that a fixed rate of at least 3£ per cent could have been obtained. TAIRUA COMMITTEE REPORT, [By Electric Telegraph.] From a Correspondent of the Press . The Tairuacommittee report that they were appointed to enquire into the circumstance s connected with the question of the transfe r of the Tairua and Pakarati block, in the province of Auckland, to the provincial administration. The Tairua block of 36,000 acres was conveyed by the natives to the Queen on the 7th of December, 1872, without any reservation being expressed in the body of the deed, except of the timber rights. On the 24th June, 1874, the block was proclaimed under the Waste Lands Act subject to the Auckland Waste Lands law. On the 25th of July, 1874, Mr Mackay wrote to the Auckland Provincial Government that the natives wanted a reserve of 1000 acres at Tairua but the reserve was not defined on the grant. On the 15th of July the conveyance from the natives to the Queen was registered, and on the 14th April, 1875, the surveyor appointed by the Provincial Government reported the desirability of reserving the available site for township, and on the 15th

'■* W ■■ Of May, 1875, the Provincial Government heard that this same site wasbci'-g surveyed on behalf of the natives, and Mr Maeka> did not report the selection of the reserve miMl after the survey had been made 0 i the 2nd of July, 1875, the Provincial Government learned for the first time that the only township site had been taken as the native reserve of 1000 acres, and that the natives had leased it to an interpreter named Guilding. in Mr Mackay’s employ. Mr Guilding had had full knowledge of the transactions connected with the reserve from the very fiist Mr Guilding subsequently admitted Mr U Hal.oran, another of Mr Mackay’s clerks, as a partner in this lease. Mr Mackay was not cognisant of this transaction until after its completion, and he says in evidence that he expressed his disapproval of it. Messrs Guilding and O’Halloran were employed by Mr Mackay both in his private and public capacity. The committee expressed an opinion that the leasing of the reserve by persons employed by Mr Mackay, presumably with special information on the subject, not accessible to the public generally, is open to the greatest objection. The facts relating to the acceptance by Mr Crippen, a clerk of Mr Mackay’s, of a share of the prospectors’ claim at Tairua are as follows : —The prospectors asked their agent, Mr W. A. Graham, to offer a share to Mr Mackay, the General Govern ment agent. Mr Mackay refused, giving as his reason that it would perhaps be used against him in his official capacity. He was then asked if he would like it to be given to Mr O’Halloran, and he objected, as Mr O’Halloran was connected with him by marriage, but he suggested Mr Crippen, who had been a faithful servant of his. It was accordingly given to Mr Crippen, and from Mr O’Halloran’s evidence it appears that the share was divided equally between them. It was afterwards sold for £2OOO, and Mr O’Halloran got £BOO. Mr Mackay states positively that he himself was not directly or indirectly interested in the share. The committee considered this transaction highly improper, that whilst Mr Mackay declined a share himself he should have peremptorily refused to allow any of the persons in his employ to accept it. The committee proceeded to comment on the terms of Mr Mackay’s employment as a Land Purchase Commissioner, partly acting for Government and partly for private individuals. This the committee condemned, and was of opinion that an agent situated in that way should not be allowed to determine the nature and rights of private persons. The committee also suggest legislation to settle the rights, and strongly condemn the system under which Messrs O’Halloran and Crippen were able to use information not accessible to the public, and recommended that all persons employed as agents of the Government in the purchase of native lands, whether paid by salary or by commission, should be taken to be Government officers, subject to the ordinary rules and regulations of the public service. The committee also reported that no man employed by Government to purchase land should be allowed to traffic in land for himself.