THE "TAMMANY" CHARGES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 196, 28 November 1910, Page 5

THE "TAMMANY" CHARGES

THE HINE COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE HOUSE. TO BE DEBATED TO-MORROW. The following are the findings of the committee of the House of Representatives set up to consider the charges made by Mr. J. B. Hine, the member for Stratford, against certain members and ex-members of Parliament: — CHARGES AGAINST MR. SYMES.

In regard to charge No. 1 against Mr. Symes, in connection with the sale of Alfred Bayly's property at Toko, it is shown that Mr. Alfred Bayly voluntarily gave as a gift to Mr. Symes a promissory note for the sum of £3OO, which note was duly paid at maturity. The committee, although satisfied that Mr. iSymes did not influence the sale in question, find that it was improper in the circumstances for him, being a member of Parliament, to accept the gift of £3OO from Mr. Bayly. In regard to charge No. 2, accepting sums of money for preparing and conducting petitions in Parliament on behalf of West Coast lessees, the committee find that though Mr. Symes may have considered he was entitled to charge a commission for his services in connection with the collection of moneys voted by Parliament, these services were so closely connected with his duties as a member of Parliament as to render the acceptance of any payment or reward therefore improper. Regarding the third charge, about threatening to use his influence with the Government against a newspaper, the committee find that the charge of a threat is not established. Though Mr. Syme's letter of October 4 may be susceptible of such construction, it may not have been so intended by the writer. It must be remembered that it was a reply to a request made to 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. MAJOR.

The first charge against Mr. Major was that he received a commission from Frederick Bayly for the sale of his property at Toko to the Government. The committee finds that the evidence did not show any breach of the Disqualification Act, but that Mr. Major's action is in direct contravention of a resolution of the House agreed to in July, 188 G. In regard to the second charge as to the receipt of a commission in connection with the sale of Mr. Alfred Bayly's property, the evidence shows that it was Mr. Symes and not Mr. Major who was connected with the transaction. Mr. Major in this case neither received a commission nor shared a commission with Mr. Symes, nor with anyone else. CHARGES AGAINST ME. KAIHAU, M.P. The first charge is that Mr. Kaihau received a sum of money from the vendors in connection with the sale of tin Te Akau Block to the Government. The evidence shows that after the purchase money had been paid by the Crown to the Natives Mr. Kaihau received from the Xgatitihenga tribe a sum of about £2OOO, which had been fixed by the leading man of the tribe with the consent of the tribe as a reasonable remuneration for Mr. Hainan's services. This amount included the sum of about £6OO disbursed by Mr. Kaihau in connection with the litigation. The finding of the committee is that Mr. Kaihau did not conduct the sale to the Government, but that the sale was negotiated and conducted by the officers of the Native Land Purchase Department directly with the Native owners. They add that nothing done by Mr. Kaihau in this transaction amounted to a breach of anv rule or law.

In re six charges that Mr. Kaihau received payment in connection with certain petitions to Parliament, the evidence shows that in four cases the charges are established, in one case the charge was not established, and that in another case the charge was withdrawn. The committee find that the receipt by Mr. Kaihau of these payments in connection with' his duties as a member of Parliament was improper. THE FLAXBOURNE CHARGE.

Tn this case the charge in brief was that the Government of the day paid

an extravagant fee to one Alexander Lorimer Wilson, with the intent of remunerating T. K. Macdonald, or hi* partner or firm for the services of ii» said T. K. Macdonald as assessor. The finding of the committee is that Mr. Wilson duly performed the service! stated, and was regularly and properly paid therefor, in accordance with the authority for payment certified to by Dr. Findlay, and approved by the late Mr. Seddon. They further find that such payment was not made with the intent or object of indirectly remuneraating the Hon. Mr. Macdonald, either alone or as a partner of the late firm of Macdonald, Wilson and Co., or of.remunerating Mr. A. L. Wilson for the services of the said T. K. Macdonald as assessor. RESOLUTIONS PASSED. PROPOSED LEGISLATION. The committee passed the following resolutions:—

(1) Referring to the third charge against Mr. Symes, the committee desires to express the opinion that it is a matter of regret that a confidential communication written by Mr. Walter Symes to Mr. M'Cluggagej 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) The committee is of opinion 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 an estate to the Crown. A MINORITY REPORT. A minority report, signed bv Messrs. Massey, Allen, Fraser, and Buchanan, was prepared in respect to one charge that against Henare Kaihau, in connection with the Te Akau Block. The signatories state that they dissent from the majority report in respect to this charge, because in their opinion it should have been stated in the finding (a) that Mr. Kaihau did agree with the Natives to conduct the sale to the Government of the Te Akau Block; (b) that Mr Kaihau did receive from the vendors a sum of £2OOO, which included commission for the sale of the Te Akau Block(c) that Mr. Kaihau's action was in direct contravention of a resolution of the House agreed to on July 14, 1886. It will be noted that the dissent refers only to the Te Akau purchase. It is understood that the chairman at first ruled that he would allow the dissent to be recorded on the ground that the inquiry was a judicial inquiry, and because Judges who hold different opinions from the majority are permitted to record their opinions. Subsequently he reversed his ruling, and ruled the dissent out of order. This being so, it was useless to make other formal dissents. The Te Akau Block referred to is the 13,0O(» acres of the Te Akau Block purchased by the Crown, and not the whole block. THE REPORT ADOPTED.

Mr. Hanan moved the adoption of the report, and that it be laid on the table of the House, also that the evidence be printed. Mr. Massey asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do to give the House an opportunity of discussing the report. There was, he. said, a considerable difference of opinion between members of the committee on some of the findings, and he wished to have something to say. The Prime Minister said he thought the report should be considered on Tuesday. He also wanted to speak on the matter. He thought the discussion should be deferred until Tuesday, and he consequently moved the adjournment of the debate. After a short discussion as to whether or not the report and evidence were now public the Speaker ruled that everything was now public. The debate was adjourned until Tuesday.

,Mr. Fraser (Wakatipu) read a motion passed by the committee expressing appreciation of the able services rendered by the chairman of the committee, Mr. J. A. Hanan. THE COMMITTEE.

The committee consisted of Mr. J. A. Hanan (chairman), Sir Joseph Ward, the Hon. J. A. Millar, Mr. W. F. Massey, Mr. James Allen. Mr. W. Fraser, Mr. A. M. Myers, Mr. V. H. Reed, Mr. W. C. Buchanan, and Mr. «T Graham.