21

1.—7

62. What then became of it?—lt was sent to the printer. 63. And that is the copy you now produce to-day as having been obtained from the Printing Office ?—Yes. 64. Now as to No. 2 copy ?—That never left my possession. 65. That was produced by you at the last meeting ?—Yes. 66. Now as to No. 3 ? —That I am unable to account for. 67. But you have got it here ?—Yes; but the process of its travel I am unable to account for. 68. You did not give Mr. Easton a copy? —No. 69. I understand that you sent to Mr. Easton, as one of the witnesses, the same copy as you sent to other witnesses ?—Yes. 70. You do not recollect having sent him any other copy ?—No. 71. You cannot tell this Committee how he became possessed of another copy, and was able to return it to the secretary ?—No. 72. Now as to Mr. Cook's copy of the evidence : there were three copies taken of that also ?— Yes. 73. Was No. 1 treated in the same way as Mr. Easton's? —Yes. 74. That is, first sent to members of the Committee, then to the witnesses, and then to the printer ? —Yes, only that I transferred the corrections on to another copy, and which copy I produced to-day. 75. What of the third copy ?—That I know nothing about. 76. Is that not on the table ?—Not that I know of. 77. All three copies of Mr. Cook's evidence are here. All that we can ascertain is that Mr. Cook seems to have been possessed of two copies, one of which was sent to the printer, and the other is produced this morning?— Yes. 78. Sir J. G. Ward.] I understood from you, when you gave evidence here a few days ago, that you missed one copyof this evidence three or four days after you had received it ?—Yes. 79. And that there were only two copies of the evidence then in your possession, including the copy which was afterwards sent to the Printing Office? —Yes. 80. Then, in your evidence you stated that you did not know where the third or missing copy had gone to ?—No. 81. If Mr. Cook declares in his evidence that he received that copy from you by letter ?— Then I must have forgotten having sent it to him. 82. And if he did so that would account for the third copy ? —Yes. 83. In that case the evidence which appeared in the Dunedin Evening Star must have been copied from one of the three original documents now in the possession of the Committee ?—Yes, that is my opinion. 84. Of the two copies that have remained in your room, would it have been possible for any person to take a shorthand copy, in your room, without you knowing it ?—Not unless he had access to my cupboard. 85. And you are quite certain they were in your cupboard during the whole time?— Yes, quite certain. 86. The Chairman.] Although you stated in your previous evidence that you did not count them, but bundled all the papers together ?—Yes; but I saw the papers subsequently in the cupboard when I missed a copy. 87. Sir J. G. Ward.] You now know that the third copy has been in the hands respectively of Mr. Cook and Mr. Easton ?—That third copy I cannot trace. I do not know where it went to or who had it. 88. Did the Committee decide that a copy of Mr. Easton's evidence should be placed at Mr. Cook's disposal for cross-examination ?—There was no resolution passed. 89. Do you know as fact whether Mr. Cook has had a full copy of the charges made against him ?—The only copy I know of is the copy I sent to him for correction. 90. In that case would Mr. Cook not have had the whole of the evidence in his possession— his own, as well as Mr. Easton's ?—Yes: he corrected his own evidence, and he had to reply to the charges. 91. Did Mr. Easton have a copy oi Mr. Cook's evidence for a similar purpose?—l might have sent Mr. Easton Mr. Cook's evidence in the same way, but I am not clear on the subject. 92. Did you know that Mr. Howes and Mr. Perston were present at the meeting ? —Yes, and others. 93. Did either of them have an opportunity for perusing this evidence ?—Certainly ; it was on the table. Members of the Committee had it, and they had the opportunity to pick it up and look at it, but if they did I did not see them. 94. Are ycu of opinion that it would have been possible for anybody to have copied this evidence in your own room or during your absence, with the assistance of a shorthand-writer?—lt could not have been copied unless the person had access to my cupboard. He must have got access to that before he could get the copies. 95. The Chairman.] Have you any further statement to make ? —I have been asked my opinion and my thoughts on the subject. From what I know of the situation, there are only two ways of accounting for the publication of this evidence ; one is that the evidence, when sent to a witness, might have been taken by him to a typewriter and copied, or the evidence may have been furnished by a member of the Committee to a typewriter and copied. It does not matter whether the evidence was in the hands of a witness or of a member of the Committee for that purpose. That seems to me to be the simple issue of the whole case. 96. It simply comes to this ; that the information must hai c been supplied either by a witness or a member of the Committee ?—Yes, just so.