THE NINE CHARGES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 924, 29 November 1910, Page 4

THE NINE CHARGES.

COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS,

The Committee of the House of Representatives set up to enquire into the allegations made by Mr J. B. Hiue, against members of Parliament and the Government presented its report after the telegraph offices closed on Saturday morning.

The first charge against Mr Major is as follows: —“That Charles Edwin Major, in or about the year 1904, while a member of Parliament, conducted the sale to the Government of a property of Frederick Bayly, at Toko, and received from the said Frederick Bayly a commission or sum of money for so doing.” The second charge against Mr Major is as follows : “That Charles Edwin Major and Walter Symes, or one of them in or about the year 1905, while b oth members of Parliament, conducted the sale to the Government of a property of Alfred Bayly, at Toko, and received from the said Alfred Bayly a commission or sum of money, which the said Charles Edwin Major and Walter Symes divided.”

The evidence at length showed that Mr Major acted as agent for the vendors and not in any way as agent for the Government. That no irregularity, favour, or interference took place either on the part of the late Right lion. Mr Seddon (who was at that time Minister in charge of the Laud Purchase Department, as well as being Prime Minister), or on the part of any member of the Government.

As to the second charge —That Mr Major did not, in the year 1905, or at any time, conduct the sale to the Government of Mr Alfred Bayly’s property at Toko, and did not receive from Mr Alfred Bayly a commission or sum of money which he divided with Mr Walter Symes or anyone else. FINDING. Your committee is therefore of opinion that as regards the first charge the evidence taken did not show any, breach of any rule of law, but a direct contravention ot a resolution of the House agreed to on 14th July, 1886. As regards the second charge is has been disproved so far as Mr Major is concerned. CHARGES AGAINST MR SVMES. The first charge brought by Mr Hine against Mr Symes is as follows : “That Charles Edwin Major and Walter Symes, or one of them, in or about the year 1905, while both members of Parliament, conducted the sale to the Government of a property of Alfred Bayly at Toko, and received from the said Alfred Bayly a commission or sum of money, which the said Charles Edwin Major and Walter Symes divided. FINDING. The committee although satisfied that Mr Symes did not influence the sale in question is of opinion that it was improper in the circumstances for him being a member of Parliament to accept the gift of ,£SOO from Mr Bayly. SECOND CHARGE. The second charge against Mr Symes is as follows : “That the said Walter Symes in or about the year 1906 and again in 1908 while a member oj Parliament charged and received from a number of West Coast lessees of native lands commission or sums or money for preparing and conducting petitions in Parliament on their behalf.” FINDING. Although Mr Symes may have considered that he was entitled to charge a commission for his services in connection with the collection of moneys voted by Parliament, nevertheless the committee is of opinion that the services in respect of which he received such commission were so closely connected with the duties of a member of Parliament as to render the acceptance of any payment or reward therefor improper. THIRD CHARGE. The third charge against Mr Symes is as follows : “ That the said Walter Symes in the year 1905, while a Parliamentary election was presently in prospect in which the said Walter Symes intended to become, and subsequently became, a candidate, and being then actually a member of Parliament, did threaten or cause to be threatened a certain newspaper that he would use his influence as a member of Parliament, to prevent Government advertisements from being given to the said newspaper until he received the support of, or was treated to his own satisfaction by the said newspaper during the said election contest.” FINDING. The committee find that the charge of the threat as alleged is not established. The letter of Mr Symes of October 4th may possibly be susceptible of such construction, a'l..jugh it may not have been iuAnded by the writer. 1% construing the letter it must be remembered that it was a reply to a request made by Mr Symes that he would get a certain newspaper a share of Government advertising. This advertising was authorised by the Government on application from Mr Whitlock and without any representation to the Government from Mr Symes. CHARGES AGAINST MR. KAIHAU, The first charge againit Mr Kaihau is as follows : “That Henare Kaihau, in or about the year 1906, while a member ot Parliament, conducted

the sale to the Government of a portion of the Te Akau block and rec eived from the vendors a commission or other sum of money,” FINDING. The committee finds that Mr Kaihau did not, in or about the year 1906, while a member of Parliament, conduct the sale to the Government of any portion of the Te Akau block; but on the contrary the committee finds that the said sale was negotiated and conducted by the officers of the Native Laud Purchase Department directly with the native owners. The committee further find that nothing done by Mr Kaihau in the course of the transaction amounted to a breach of any rule or law or of any established Parliamentary practice.

SECOND CHARGE. The second charge against Mr Henare Kaihau is as follows : “ That Henare Kaihau, in the years 1900, 1902, 1904, 1905, and 1907, while a member ot Parliament, charged and received from the persons (named), on whose behalf he prepared or presented, or undertook to present, petitions to Parliament, payments of sums of money for his services relating thereto or in connection therewith.” RINDING. The committee is of opinion that the receipt by Mr Kaihau of the aforesaid payments in connection with his duties as a member of Parliament was improper. The charge in this case made by Mr Hine was against the Government of which the late Right Hon. Mr Seddon was Prime Minister, and is as follows : —• “That in or about the year 1904, the Government having taken steps to acquire compulsorily the property known as the Flaxbourne estate and appointed a member of the Legislative Council, as their assessor, and knowing or believing that by reason of his being a member of the legislative the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald could not be paid any remuneration for so acting as assessor sent the then partner of the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald, one Alexander Lorimer Wilson, to make a casual inspection of the said property and paid him an exceptionally and wholly extravagant fee therefor with the inteu t or object of indirectly remunerating the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald or his partner or firm tor the services ot the said Thomas Kennedy Macdonald as such assessor as aforesaid.” That the Hon. T. K. Macdonald at divers times applied for payment for his services as assessor in the Flaxbourne arbitration case, claiming remuneration of between and ,£6OO on the basis of the fee paid to Clifford’s assessor. That payment of the claim of the Hon. T. K. Macdonald was personally declined by Sir Joseph Ward on the ground that there was no written record of any arrangement in regard thereto made with the late Mr Seddon, and this refusal to pay the claim was on the 23rd May, 190 S, confirmed by Cabinet. RINDING. The committee is of opinion that Mr A. L. Wilson duly rendered and performed the aforesaid services and was regularly and properly paid therefor in accordance with the authority for payment certified to by Dr Findlay, counsel for the Crown, and approved by the late Mr Seddon, and that such payment was not made with the intent or object of indirectly remunerating the Hon. Mr Macdonald, either alone or as partner of the late firm of Macdonald, Wilson and Co., or remunerating Mr A. L. Wilson for the services of the said Hon. T. K. Macdonald as such assessor as aforesaid. RESOLUTIONS. The committee also passed the following .esolutions - 1. Referring to the third charge against Mr Symes, the committee desire to express the opinion that it is a matter of regret that a confidential communication written by Mr Symes to Mr McCluggage, which by universal custom is always treated as private, should have been ignored, and made public by those into whose hands the letter passed. 2. That legislation should be passed making it illegal for a member of Parliament to act on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person in negotiating the sale of estates to the Crown. The report is to be debated today and Mr Massey has indicated that he dissents from some of the findings.