75

L-9

87. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] I want you to produce a letter from Mr. George Hutchison respecting his speech in Hansard No. 17? —This is the letter. Shall I read it? 88. Yes, read the letter. Friday morning. Memo, for Mr. Marks, Hansard Supervisor.—On reflection, I decided to have excised, if possible, from my speech in the financial debate all references to the late Mr. Nathaniel Seddon. I came to see you on the subject this morning, and your assistant put me in communication with Mr. Burns at the Printing Office. He showed me the slips of the report of my speech which would probably form part of the next issue of Hansard, and I marked on them the passages I wish to be omitted. One of them follows a statement by the Premier immediately after the conclusion of my speech. Of course, I have no control over that part of the report. I mention what has been done, so that the Premier may be informed for the purpose of taking such action in the matter as he may think proper. G. Hutchison. That is the first letter I received, and this is the proof with the deletions indicated [produced]. In the proof produced there were the following excisions from the report, each marked out in pencil: "whose name was Nathaniel Seddon. A special examination by two of the staff of the Audit Office had been made of the borough accounts. One paragraph of their report reads thus: ' Nathaniel Seddon . . . We find after most careful consideration that he was paid in full up to the 25th December, 1879, after which confusion begins. He received wages at the rate of £3 per week up to the sth November, 1881, when his weekly engagement was terminated by order of the Council.' The same report disclosed that wages had been paid for the period from the 25th December, 1879, to December, 1881, amounting to £510 10s., but the cruel auditors had reckoned that in the period mentioned there were only ninety-seven weeks, which at the rate of £3 a week would make no more than the sum of £291, so that this employe had been overpaid by no less than £219 10s. The trial of the Town Clerk followed, and the right honourable gentleman who gave his evidence as an expert so early as that on finance attempted to prove that the two auditors were all wrong, and that there was no such thing as overpayment. In the course of his examination, however, a document was put into his hands. It was an authority in his own favour from his uncle, Nathaniel Seddon, under which the right honourable gentleman had to admit that he himself had been the person who had drawn the moneys so paid and overpaid." 89. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] You came to see me, Mr. Marks, as requested in that letter?—l communicated with you, yes. 90. You gave to me the purport of the letter?— Yes. 91. What was my reply?— Well, to the best of my recollection your reply was that you did not think you had any control as to the statements which had been made in connection with this matter. That is what I understood from you. You also said that there were other serious charges in the speech besides the one proposed to be deleted, and that you would be no party to any proposal to delete any part of the speech, and I allowed the thing to remain in abeyance for a short time. In the meantime a further altercation took place in the House between the Premier and Mr. George Hutchison. Of course, the Premier was consulted as being the other party to the matter, as is my practice in such cases. However, I received later another letter from Mr. Hutchison, which I also put before the Premier as the other party to the matter, and he seemed to think it was not his (the Premier's) place to say whether the excisions should be made or not. Mr. Hutchison's second letter to me was as follows :— Saturday. Memo, for Mr. Marks, Hansard Supervisor.—After the discussion in Committee this morning, it would be absurd to keep out of my speech of last Tuesday the references to the late Mr. Nathaniel Seddon, so that I desire the proofs remain as they are, without the excisions. G. Hutchison. 92. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] Did I not tell you deliberately that I would be no party to the striking out of anything ? —Yes ; I think that was at the later stage, but I am not absolutely certain. I only had a few words with you by telephone on the Friday morning; but you certainly told me afterwards that you would be no party to the matter being taken out. 93. Now, the portions proposed to be omitted are marked here in this proof in pencil: " whose name was Nathaniel Seddon. A special examination was made . . ."; and so that was marked out ?—Yes ; and I marked it " stet," as you will see. 94. Mr. Hutchison also proposed to strike out the words now on page 63 of Hansard : " The trial of the Town Clerk followed .. ." and so on, as marked in this proof ?—Yes, he proposed to strike them out also. 95. And those words, if I had been a consenting party, would have gone out of Hansard ? —■ Yes; in fact, they had been taken out of the type, but when I went to the Printing Office and found them taken out I immediately ordered them to be reinserted until such time as the question should be decided. 96. Do you mean, then, that Mr. Hutchison had taken them out ?—Yes; he said in his letter that he had left the proof, showing the words he wished taken out, with the overseer at the Printing Office. 97. Hon. W. Bolleston.] When did this second letter reach you ?—I think, a few hours later —about 4or 5 o'clock in the morning, or perhaps later. It was handed to me in the lobby, at the finish of the financial debate—about 5 a.m. on the Saturday. I received the first letter at about 12 o'clock on the Friday. It was practically the same day, although it was the next morning—that is, it was the same working-day so far as I am concerned. 98. When did the financial debate stop ?—Well, this letter—the second one—came to me at daylight on the Saturday morning; that was at the close of the financial debate, when the second altercation took place between the Premier and Mr. Hutchison. lam absolutely certain as to the ime. 98a. Bt. Hon. B. J. Seddon.] You have said that, if the Hansard had been published as it was printed in the Printing Office, it would have been without these allegations against myself?—l do not think that would have been done without referring it to me. They took it for granted in the