THE HINE CHARGES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 192, 23 November 1910, Page 5

THE HINE CHARGES.

CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. -Jj By Telegraph.—Press Association, /.a Wellington, November 22. J Sir Joseph Ward put in a return J showing that of 13 estates eompulsorily acquired by the Government, tie price J paid wais £1,127,042, whereas the own- 3 ers claimed £1,705,558, showing a saving of £502,910. ~ -j J. F. Andrews, Secretary to the Cam- J net, produced a minute showing that Mr t ,3 i MacDonakl had forwarded a claim for his ■>. -,j I services as assessor, but Cabinet had • ; .j declined to recognise 'it. _ j Tliat concluded the evidence, and the ? report will probably be presented to -A I the House oa Thursday. Altogether 51 i 5 witnesses were examined. || THE STRATFORD CASE. \ —— V • -a " THE NEWSPAPER CHARGE." \jj The New Zealand Times publishes the . ,'i following in Tuesday's issue:— y Edward F. H. Hemingway, town clerk, ( * Stratford, was called to supplement the '.-«3 case known as "the newspaper charge." He was shown the letter sent by Mr. Walter Svmes to Mr. MeCluggage regarding the Government advertising in the \ Stratford Evening Post. Sir Joseph Ward produced the letter, calling attention to the sentence in which 1* Mr. Symes stated that the letter was 1 private, but could be shown to a director "5 of the Stratford Post. Witness denied •*. copying the letter or photographing it. j Sir Joseph Ward: Did you have a copy . V of it?— Witness: I did. Did you read it publicly? —Yes, I did % so in response to a challenge from Mr, '"i Symes. vy.| If you write a,letter to another person '5 which states in the body of it that it is . | confidential, that it is only to be shown q to the director of the paper and another ■'? gentleman, would you think it a proper 1 thing to make use of it publicly? —I would never have left such a letter out $ of my possession for five years. That letter was in the possession of the soli- ' r| Citor to the Opposition party from 1905' ■ s until 1910. J When did you copy it ?—I never copied *f it. I got it from a director of the 'A Stratford Evening Post shortly after '..a the original had been handed to my " party to make use of it. Witness added .. J that his party obtained a legal opinion J as to whether the letter'was a corrupt/ij practice, and held a consultation to de- ;t| cide whether to use the letter in a court '\h of law. It was decided not to do so. He 3 knew the original was in the possession ' q of his party, and considered he had a | perfect right to read it. The letter was not marked "Private and Confidential."

That letter was to be privately used, ;*r, according to the sentence in the body of '■% it. Why was it used publicly?— That is a matter between the directors of the 4 Evening Post, not between him and my J party. Mr. Myers: How does this question <*,< affect Mr. Symes? The Prime Minister: It is a charge 'jj against the Government. (To the wit- . ness): Do you think it was proper to ™ read the letter?— Witness: I can't under* stand, for the'life of me, how Mr. Mc-i(i Cluggage let it out of his possession. '3 The Prime Minister: Do you think if >' proper to read such a letter publicly?— ' A Witness: I was challenged in a most in- S suiting manner by Mr. Symes to read y, what letters I had in my possession. He " referred to me and another as quack * parsons, because we both happened to be lay readers, and wound up a most in- * suiting speech by daring me to come on the platform and read the letters. I j did what any man would have done, and. > read the letters.. If there were anything / s improper in divulging any letter, the J impropriety lies on the shoulders of the person to whom the letter was written, 7 not on the shoulders of the party. 'ijj "RAISING THE STANDARD OP i PUBLIC LIFE." The Hon. J. A. Millar: You assisted to-'j draft Mr. Hine's election address?— Wi- ,j, ness assented. .s| Did it not contain a sentence about 5 raising the standard public life?— Yea. jj And you did it by purloining a private.? letter?—l don't understand the use of J the word "purloining" in this connection. I did not see the words "Private and confidential" on it. | The sense of honor of the party of '} purity is such that it will use a private'! letter containing words which show ifc.l is confidential?— Yes, under the circum- ? stances. '? Mr. Massey: Do you know if the let-;" ter were marked and confident tial" ?—lt is not. THE LAWFUL OWNERSHIP. ! Mr. Reed: Who was the lawful owner'; of the letter ?—Mr. McCluggage. Did he instruct you to read the letter?' —I had it from my party. The letter > was handed to them presumably to pun- 3 isli Mr. Symes. I never asked for the, 5; letter, but it was brought to me. They-JB said, "Hemingway, take this; it might, come in useful to you some day." I' kept the letter for three years without J thinking about it, and then, as luck | would have it, I was challenged. Re-examined bv Sir Joseph Ward, wit- ij ness said he got the letter from Mr. W.'* D. Anderson, solicitor. '.ji The Hon. J. A. Millar: Did you see a' ? memo, on the letter: ''Kindly return let-K ter to me when perused" ?—No. . ' Do you think it was an honorable ac- | tion for a solicitor to send you a copy without those words on it?— That is a I matter of opinion. | Sir Joseph Ward: I want your opinion., ! The witness did not answer. " To Mr. Massey: The letter came into the hands of the Opposition Party honorably, and he considered that in the* interests of good government that it 'j should have been published. 4 To Mr. Reed: Mr. McCluggage, the I owner of the letter, was a supporter of l Mr. Symes. He did not think Mr. Mc--;; Cluggage would have used the letter > against Mr. Symes, but he doubtless. handed it to his fellow-directors. ■'s