1.—9

76

Printing Office, seemingly, that I would consent, and took the matter out; but immediately I saw the deletion I said, " This must certainly go in again." .99. At all events your coming to me was because Mr. Hutchison wanted to strike out the words ?—Yes; but I would have gone to you just the same, whether Mr. Hutchison had asked me or not, because, as I have said, it is my practice to go to both parties in such cases. 100. But you would not go to the other member in every case where a member wanted to take something out of his speech ?—lf the matter he wished to delete had reference to any other member I would do so. I frequently have such cases; I had a case only last night. 101. Do you mean that if Mr. Hutchison had only asked you verbally to strike something out you would still have come to me ?—I would have come to you in any case in this matter. 102. Do you mean to say that you go to consult members about other members' sayings in the House? —I mean to say that if there is a quarrel in the House between two members, and one of them wishes to withdraw anything he has said, I would consult the other party about it. 103. That is not what you conveyed?— Well, I intended to convey that meaning. 104. Do you remember me saying to you that Mr. Hutchison "may do as he pleases, but I shall be no party to the alteration " ?—Yes, I remember that. 105. It was owing to further altercation between Mr. Hutchison and myself that he wrote his second letter ?—Yes. I was going to see Mr. Hutchison to tell him that, after what had taken place in the House, the proposed deletion should not be made, and he handed me this letter [produced] as*king that nothing at all should be struck out. The further altercation would have had to be omitted from Hansard if the first deletion was allowed, as it would convey no meaning to the general reader. 106. Do you produce the uncorrected speech as reported in the House ? —No, I do not produce it here now. 107. Could you produce it ?—Yes, that could be produced, but not just immediately. The Hansard " copy " is kept twelve months. 108. Mr. Massey : The two letters have been put in as evidence ? 109. The Chairman : Yes, they are here. 110. Mr. Massey.] In his first letter did Mr. Hutchison request you to see Mr. Seddon about the remarks to be struck out ? —Yes. 111. And the second letter asked that the matter be left in ?—Yes. 112. Is this the usual course when members wish to have anything withdrawn ? —Well, there have been cases where both parties have come to me together and have asked that references made in their speeches should be struck out, and I have in such cases put the request before the Speaker. I cannot remember a case where any one has made an allegation, as in this case, and has afterwards asked to have it removed. Ido not think there has been a case where only one party has come to me. 113. At first Mr. Seddon entertained the proposal, did he not ? —No, I do not think that he ever entertained the proposal. I only communicated with Mr. Seddon by telephone, because I wanted an urgent answer. He said he would have nothing to do with it, it was to lie with Mr. Hutchison ; and before I had a chance of speaking to the Premier again the second altercation in the House took place, and immediately after I said to the Premier, " Whatever I may have said to you before in connection with this matter, so far as I am concerned, I shall not take it out now. Ido not think I shall put it before the Speaker." 114. Hon. J. G. Ward.] After the telephone communication with the Premier did you give Mr. Hutchison any notice of the Premier's disinclination to allow the alteration?—No, I do not remember giving him any intimation at all. 115. Mr. Duthie.] I took down that Mr. Seddon's reply was, " Mr. Hutchison may do as he pleases, I will be no party to it." That is what you said in reply to a question by Mr. Eolleston. The question by Mr. Eolleston was, " Mr. Seddon at first entertained the proposal," and you answered that in the negative ; but your first answer, that " Mr. Hutchison may do as he pleases," implies that the Premier gave an assent thereby?—l cannot see any difference in the replies I gave. I understood the Premier to mean that Mr. Hutchison could do as he pleased with his own speech ; at the same time I understood him to mean that he would have nothing to do with the matter. 116. That is the point I wish to be clear upon; it was an indirect assent—" He may do as he pleases"- —is that not so? —I do not think so. I looked upon Mr. Seddon's answer as meaning that he would have nothing to do with the matter. His words were, " I will have nothing to do with it; Mr. Hutchison may do as he pleases." 11.7. .1 do not think you said that before?— Yes, I think I did. .118.; Hon. W. Bolleston.] I took a note of a reply by Mr. Marks to this effect: that it was at a " later stage " that the Premier said he would be no party to it. Now, did you say that it was at a later stage ?—I do not think so; perhaps I may have. If the Committee would allow me to make a statement I think I could make my meaning clearer. I shall give " the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This being allowed, the witness said as follows :— Witness : I will say again that when I came down from my home on Friday morning the first letter from Mr. Hutchison was handed to me. The letter bears no date except Friday. I then went to the Printing Office, where I found that the type had been taken from that slip [witness indicating the proof-sheet produced], and I ordered that it should be reinserted. In the meantime I communicated with the Premier, who, to the best of my recollection (I put nothing in writing), gave me distinctly to understand that he would have nothing at all to do with this matter of taking out anything—that he would be no party to it. Further, he inquired what was proposed to be taken out, and I said the reference to Nathaniel Seddon. I then allowed the question to remain in abeyance. A very short time elapsed between this and the second altercation. When the