I.—sa

92

acre. It should have been 9d. It had once been 6d.; and, as a matter of fact, it was during all these years 6d. in a sense, unperceived by me at the time, for Mr. Douglas had to pay first property-, and afterwards land- and graduated-tax, out of the 9d. per acre rent. lam not, as I have said, answerable to any one for what I may say in public. I am here out of respect for a Parliamentary Committee, who invited me to attend. I appear here, I believe, as a witness, and have nothing else to do with this inquiry—except in so far as I was also invited to examine the witnesses. That is all I have to say. 15. Dr. Fitchett.] You say that the words you used were absolutely and literally true? —■ Literally and absolutely true. 16. What meaning did you intend them to convey ? —Precisely the meaning that is ordinarily attached to the words. You are as good a judge of their meaning as I am. 17. Did you mean that your audience should infer that the Minister had been guilty of corruption : I wish you to answer the question " Yes " or " No " —you can explain afterwards?— No, I did not; on the contrary, I could hardly do that when I had made an express repudiation of corruption. I commenced with the following: " Let it be clearly understood that lam far from making any suggestion that the Minister is guilty of corruption." 18. Have you any reason to suppose that your audience inferred that the Minister had been guilty of corruption ? —None whatever. 19. Do you believe that your audience did not infer corruption?—l have not, I think, heard the word " corruption " mentioned at the time, or since in the public prints. 20. You are on your oath. Do you say that you never saw any imputation of corruption or jobbery, or heard of any such imputation being inferred by your audience or in the public prints ?—- Absolutely none. I should like to see any such produced. 21. Have you always assumed that attitude? —In what capacity do you mean? 22. When you made speeches in public, or when writing in papers ? —Most undoubtedly so, from first to last. 23. You are unaware that your words conveyed that impression ?—Wholly unaware of it. I am not responsible for other people's minds. The words used speak for themselves. 24. Do you tell the Committee that you are unaware that the public have made such an inference ?—So far as lam concerned I am not aware of it; but I cannot answer for the public mind. If the public cannot understand plain words, lam not responsible. 25. Do you believe that the construction you put on the words you used is the construction put on them by the public ?—Yes. 26. Would it not be your duty to correct an imputation of corruption put upon language used in your speeches? —I do not think so necessarily. 27. Where the language is considered to impute corruption to a Minister of the Crown, would it not be your duty to do so?—Certainly, if the words used were in any way distorted ; I have said so already. 28. I want to get your statement clearly before the Committee. You say that you never intended corruption to be inferred against the Minister, and that you never knew it was inferred from your words ? —Never. 29. You know the correspondence that took place in the Otago Daily Times, in which you took so prominent a part?—l attached my name to any correspondence. I always do. 30. Do you remember a correspondent calling himself "Watch"?—l do; the man appeared to me to be a fool. 31. I will quote from his letter : " On the 6th November Mr. Scobie Mackenzie is reported to have said: 'Take this last Pomahaka purchase, for instance. I believe it to be a downright bad purchase —a much worse one than the Cheviot. I only know the land by repute; but it is a cold, ungenerous soil. It is purchased on the eve of a general election; the owner of it is an influential man in this immediate neighbourhood; he employs a number of men and may influence a number of votes; his nephew is head of one Government department. The land has been for sale for many years; I heard it myself offered for sale at the same price, I think, ten years ago. It has been rented a long time at 6d. per acre rent, which is five per cent, on a capital value of 10s. per acre. I believe even at that rent the land was about to be thrown up.' Now, 1 take it that these remarks were intended to convey, and did convey to those who read them, this, namely, that the Minister of Lands had corruptly and wickedly used his authority to buy the influence of Mr. John Douglas at the election just past, and that he (the Minister) had given at least £2 per acre more for the Pomahaka land than it was worth for the purpose of buying Mr. Douglas's influence. This was the meaning I found in the remarks, and I know that many others found the same meaning in them. If they did not mean this, I still fail to understand what they did mean. I and many others thought that Mr. Scobie Mackenzie had unearthed a job. Two days after, however, I saw that Mr. Douglas, &c." Do you still say, after hearing that letter read, that you were unaware that people inferred corruption ? —Yes ; my opinion is not affected by an anonymous letter-writer. 32. With whom you corresponded until the correspondence grew too inconvenient for you to continue. He says, specifically, that he and many others thought you had unearthed a job—the job being that " the Minister had wickedly and corruptly used his influence, &c." Do you still persist in saying that nobody understood you to have charged the Minister with corruption ?—Yes ; I say so. 33. You replied to that letter, and I will quote from your reply: " One sentence only in ' Watch's' letter may be worthy of notice now. . . . ' I and many others thought that Mr. Scobie Mackenzie (after his Palmerston speech) had unearthed a job.' Now, the obvious meaning of that sentence is that while ' Watch ' and ' many others ' thought I had unearthed a job they do not think so now. I therefore propose shortly to direct the attention of ' Watch' and the public