MOKAU JONES' CASE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 202, 5 December 1910, Page 3

MOKAU JONES' CASE

CLAIM FOR OPEN INQUIRY. A long letter lias been addressed by }!:■. .!-.j-.'.i;:;i .Tones lo the Prime Minister asking thai a competent open tribunal should be set up to investigate facts connected with, the history of what is" known as the Mokau Jones Estate. It will be remembered (says the Dominion) that a petition bearing on the same subject wus, earlier in the session, considered by the A to L Petitions' Committee, which, in its addition to finding that a number of allegations made in it were without foundation, and that petitioner did not appear to have any legal interest in the state, recommended the Government to endeavour to bring about an amicable understanding between the parties concerned with a view to settling the land, and also that in any such mutual understanding petitioner's claims to equitable consideration should be clearly defined. In the course of his letter to the Prime. Minister, Mr. Jones says he takes exception to the committee's report and to itlie form of .procedure adopted by it. Mr. Jones asks for an immediate and full investigation of the circumstances in public by an impartial tribunal, and that the witnesses be examined on oath. Mr. Jones expresses dissatisfaction with the constitution ot the A to L Petitions' Committee that heard his petition on the ground that there was a preponderance of Government members on it. In the course of a covering letter, Mr. H. Okey, M.P.. says 3ie thinks Mr. Jones' statements as to the proceedings of the committee which considered his petition are fairly correct. Mr. Jones, he says, was informed by the chairman (Mr. Davey) at the commencement that the committee was merely called to define as to how the petition should be dealt with. Neither Mr. Jones nor Mr. Okey was prepared for the full investigation, or other steps would have been taken to present the evidence to the committee. Amongst other shortcomings the committee committed a grave error and inflicted injury on Mr. Jones by refusing to permit him to call evidence to contradict material statements made by the witnesses, many of which he had evidence to contradict. Another serious mistake was made in preventing Mr. Jones producing evidence of the circumstances that occurred in England which necessarily would have an important' bearing on what had been done with respect to the property in the Dominion. Mr, Okey expresses the opinion that had the inquiry taken place in the open, with the witnesses placed upon oath, a very different conclusion would have been submitted to Parliament, As the case now stands Mr. Jones has very just grounds for complaint. A STRONG PROTEST.

On Thursday, in the House, Mr. Davey strongly protested against the action of Mr. Okey in sending a letter to the Prime Minister in which he had reflected upon the manner in which he, had presided over committee. Were the extracts which he quoted from the Dominion portions of a letter which Mr. Okey liad so written? This was a question whdeh he addressedto Mr. Okey. Mr. Okey said Mr. Davey knew that he objected at the committee meeting to Mr. Jones not being called to give rebutting evidence. Mr..Jones himself must have given the letter to the Dominiont He (Mr. Okey) wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and Mr. Jones had a copy of it and must have given it to the newspaper. AN EMPHATIC PROTEST.

Mr. Davey said he did not know whether it could be described as a breach of privilege to write a letter of that kind, but he wished to enter an emphatic protest against it. He would like the members of the committee to say whether he acted unfairly as chairman, of the committee. He had never been accused of being unfair, and he had never consciously acted unfairly. In has opinion it was an extraordinary thing for a member of Parliament to do. Mr. Okey had complained in the committee room that he (Mr. Davey) had not treated Mr. Jones fairly. He had been made to withdraw the words, and the matter would never have been mentioned had this other matter not cropped up. Mr. E. H. Taylor (Thames) argued' that the letter was an absolute reflection upon every member of the committee. He had never seen a chairman who acted more patiently or who gave morn liberty than Mr. Davey. He thought a resolution should be passed protesting against members of the Opposition casting unwarrantable reflections on members on the Government side. (Opposition laughter.) Messrs. Jennings, MTlona'ld, Newman, Fisher, and Hine declared that in their opinion Mr. Jones had had fair treatment by the chairman. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said that every member of the committee sympathised with Mr. Jones. No restrictions were placed upon Mr. Jones in the matter of laying his evidence before the committee. He looked upon the letter as a wanton slander on members of the committee.

MR. OKEY'S EXPLANATION. Mr. Okey (Taranaki) said that neithsr Mr. Newman nor Air. Hine were present at the last meeting of the committee. He had told the chairman that he was not satisfied with the treatment Mr. Jones had received. Mr. Jones felt that he had not had proper treatment in reference to the evidence. He found that Dr. Findlay, before he gave his evidence, was allowed to get a copy of Mr. Jones' evidence. If it were right for Dr. Findlay to get a copy, Mr. Jones should not have been refused a copy of it. When Mr. Jones applied for a copy, Mr. Davef said that he could take a copy. The clerk, however, said he must copy it out while he was in the room. If he (the clerk) left, Mr. Jones also would have to leave. He (Mr. Okey) said he was doubtful if a breach of privilege had not been committed in allowing Dr. Findlay to get a copy of the evidence. Mr. Massey: Was that done? Continuing, Mr. Okey said he thought that Mr. Jones should have had the right of calling evidence in rebuttal of the evidence given by Dr Findlay and others. He had no chance to reply to their statements.

Mr. Davey: That is not correct. Proceeding, Mr. Okey said it was quite ] right that Mr. Davey called upon him to withdraw in regard to his protest, and rather than eause trouble he had done so. Mr. Okey said that Mr. Jones had a copy of the letter which he sent to the Prime Minister. It must have been Mr. Jones who gave a copy to the Dominion. When Mr. Jones' papers were wanted at times it was found that Dr. Findlay had them. Mr. Newman explained that he was present at the last meeting of the committee.

Mr. Massey called attention to Mr. j Okey's remark, to the effect that Dr. Findlay received a copy of Mr. Jones' evidence before he himself gave evidence. Standing Order 240 read that proof copies of the evidence were to be given to nobody besides members of the committee. He wished Mr. Speaker to rule on *he point. , ~.. MEi I Mr. Davey said he was surprised that

Mr. Okey should try to shelter his own misconduct before the committee by writing a letter scarifying its members who had not agreed with him. Mr. Jones wanted exactly what had been allowed Dr. Findlay. He would admin that he accidentally broke the Standing Orders. Although' he told Mr. Jones at first that he" could get a copy, he afterwards told him that he had made a mistake. Why was Mr. Okey not mau enough to tell the House so? Mr. Okey: You never told me? Mr. Davey went on to say that while Mr. Jones was giving evidence he made several very strong statements condemning Dr. Findlay. He told him that ot necessity Dr. Findlay must be given an opportunity to see the statements, in order to refute them. If Dr. Findlay had not been able to get a look at the evidence it would mean that he (Mr. Davey) would have had to ask him a multitude of questions. Mr. Wilford said that Dr. Findlay couiid have been present when Mr. Jones was giving evidence if he had liked. Mr. Davey added that he only gave Dr. Findlay a fair chance of defending himself. After each witness had given evidence, he asked Mr. Jones and his solicitor if they had any questions to ask. As for himself, he believed Mr. Jones got every consideration. He was, in his opinion, a much-wronged man. Mr. Massey asked if it were a fact that Dr. Findlay introduced new matter. Mr. Davey: No. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie said this breach was frequently committed every session. In view of the grave charges made against Dr. Findlay, the chairman was perfectly justified in showing him the evidence.

THE SPEAKER RULES. The Speaker ruled that a breach of privilege had been committed in the proceedings of the committee, no doubt, as explained by the chairman, inadvertently. The Speaker expressed the opinion that some amendment of the Standing Orders was necessary to allow persona against whom an allegation was made to know the evidence they had to meet.

Mr. Davey said the committee had passed a resolution that the evidence should be shown to Dr. Findlay, and he had ruled that such a resolution could not be taken. He had extended the same privilege to Mr. Jones. He asked if a breach of privilege had been committed in connection with the letter. Mr. Massey said if writing a letter to the Prime Minister after petitions were reported on was a breach of the Standing Orders, he was guilty every week. When a petition was reported on favorably he made a practice of communicating with the Minister affected, asking him to give effect to the prayer of the petitioner. Mr. Davey: Do you cast reflections on the committee? Mr. Massey: That is another matter altogether. The Speaker said it was an abstract question. If a member had communicated; with the Prime Minister with regard to a finding of a committee, and in it used language which, if used on the floor of the House would be held to be unparliamentary, he was guilty of a breach of privilege. On the assumption that such language was used, he would rule that a breach of privilege had been committed. Mr. Davey took the clipping from the Dominion up to the Speaker. The Speaker said he was only called upon to- expound the general principle. THE OPPOSITION AMUSED. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie: Do you rule that the member has committed a breach of privilege? The Speaker said that before he could give a ruling the necessary form of procedure would have to be gone through. The Hon. R. M'Kenzie: I move that in the opinion of this House he ihas committed a breach of privilege in writing a letter reflecting on the Chairman of the A to L Committee.

The Speaker: I have not the letter. Mr. Massey asked whether the breach of privilege was in the publication of the letter or the writing of it. The Speaker asked the Minister to produce the newspaper. Mr. M'Kenzie said that as it was so late in the session he would ask leave to withdraw the motion. The announcement was greeted with hearty "hear, hears" from the Government benches and laughter from the Opposition.