1.—7

16

367. You were also supplied with a copy of your own evidence, which you corrected?— Yes. 368. And you made a cooy for your own use, and returned the original corrected to the clerk ? Yes. 369. I think you have already answered that you did not supply the Evening Star with a report of the proceedings of the 15th August ? —Yes. 370. Did you allow any person to make a copy of these documents which were in your possession at any time?-—No; they were in my despatch-box the whole time, and no one had access to them. 371. Have you any information to supply to us as to how it happens that this evidence appears in the paper.—No. 372. Will you produce the missing half of the evidence that you have? —Yes. 373. Has this evidence of Mr. Easton's been continuously in your possession from the day it was handed to you until now?—lt has been continuously in my possession until now, with the exception that when I have attended the Committee I have had it with me on the table. 374. As a matter of fact, you have not transmitted it to any other person ?—No; it has never been out of my possession. I consider that a very grave injury has been done to me by the publication of the evidence. 375. Sir J. G. Ward.] From whom did you get a copy of that evidence ?—lt was sent to me. I got it at the hotel. 376. You are absolutely certain that no person could have availed himself of the evidence after you got it ?—lt was impossible. The key of my box never left my pocket. 377. The Committee gave you an opportunity of retaining the evidence as matter of defence for your guidance ?—Yes. 378. Mr. Guinness.] You say the Committee gave you the evidence: you asked to be supplied with it ?—Yes. 379. It was sent to you in a covering letter from the clerk and sealed up ?—Yes., 380. The clerk did not hand it to you open ? —No ; I received it on the Saturday afternoon in a letter. 381. Did he send you the two copies together, or give you one copy to keep and another to correct ? —No ;he must have sent the whole of it together. At a meeting of the Committee I requested that I might have a copy of the petition and a copy of Mr. Easton's evidence for my reply. He sent me a copy of the petition, and a copy of Mr. Easton's evidence for me to retain, and a single copy of my own evidence. There was a letter with the documents asking me to return my own evidence. I got a foolscap book and made a copy of my evidence—the corrected copy—and returned the corrected copy to him on the Tuesday through the post. The only copy of my evidence that I have seen at all is the one produced which is signed by me. Albert Elias Cohen examined. (No. 17.) 382. The Chairman.] You are the representative in Wellington of the Dunedin Evening Star ? —I am parliamentary reporter of the Dunedin Evening Star during the session. 383. You are aware of the object of this Committee being set up ?—Yes. 384. Have you a statement to make ? —Yes. Gentlemen, with a view of expediting the labours of the Committee, I wish to make a short statement. That the publication in the Dunedin Star of the evidence given before the Mines Committee respecting Mr. Easton's petition was a breach of the privileges of the House, I admit. It was, however, a technical breach, and many similar instances, in my experience, have been treated as such. The publication was in the interests of the public—the question being one of importance to the dredging industry of Otago—and that ho malice was intended is patent from the fact that the evidence as to both sides of the case is given in the same issue. The fairness and impartiality of the report were vouched for in the House by more than one member of the Mines Committee. Had the Star merely given a synopsis of the evidence, this might have prejudiced one party to the injury of the other. This is the first time in my experience as a parliamentary correspondent, extending over a continuous period of seventeen years, that a member of the Press Gallery has been summoned before a Privilege Committee to account for his actions. It has been suggested that the information might have been obtained from either the clerk or the shorthand-writer, to the Committee. Gentlemen, in justice to these officials, I wish to say that they must be exonerated from any complicity in what the House has unanimously declared to be a breach of its privileges. Beyond exculpating these officials, I must decline to make any statment as to the origin of the evidence. In taking this course no disrespect to the Committee is intended. The evidence was obtained in a thoroughly honourable manner, and its publication was not with a view to injure either or any of the parties concerned, but in the hope of extending the Committee's sphere of usefulness. As a journalist, I have never descended to dishonourable means of obtaining information, but when any information is given me in good faith I regard the confidence as absolutely sacred. In using the information I accept the full responsibility, and no amount of pressure will induce or compel me to disclose the source of my information. I hold this to be a point of journalistic honour, from which no departure is possible. This principle has been successfully maintained before the Supreme Court by the late Mr. E. T. Gillon, by my editor, and others, who have risked all the penalties which that tribunal could inflict for the technical offence of contempt rather than betray confidence reposed in good faith in them as journalists. In conclusion, I would just say that in taking this stand no disrespect is intended to either the House or your Committee. 385. Mr. Fisher.] How do you define that phrase, that the information was obtained in an "honourable" way?—l mean that I got it as a journalist, and by means that no journalist would be ashamed to adopt. There was certainly nothing dishonourable in the way of obtaining it. It was certainly not surreptitiously or dishonourably obtained.