I.—2b

40

118. Mr. Wilford.] Are you , aware that Cornet Wrigg got the New Zealand War Medal not under Colonel St. John, but under Colonal Lyon ?—I am aware of that. 119. You and Mr. Wrigg are not good friends?— No. 120. You have been bad friends ?—No, not that I can say. 121. You have had high words together?— The only high words which ever passed between us were those used by Mr. Wrigg when leaving this room at the recent adjournment, when he called me a " liar." 122. Do you suggest to the Committee you have no bias against Mr. Wrigg?—Yes. 122 a. The Chairman.] Can you state how many years it is since the conversation you relate took place between you and Colonel St. John ?—lt must have been in about 1876 or 1877. 123. That would be twenty-two years ago ?—Yes. 124. Mr. Hutchison.] How long before Colonel St. John's death was it that the conversation took place?—l cannot remember; it might be a year or two. 125. Mr. Wilford.] Who recalled this conversation to your memory: Mr. Lingard?—Mr. Lingard spoke to me one day in the street saying he had the petition with him. I just casually cast my eye over it, and I said I would sign no petition affecting a fellow-officer of mine for many years, and I refused to sign the petition. And then we spoke about Mr. Wrigg. I said I quite approved of the petition, but at the same time I would not sign it myself. 126. Did Mr. Lingard ask you if you recollected any conversation you had with Colonel St. John in reference to Mr. Wrigg?—l believe he-did. Yes, I think he did. 127. Did he state to you the tenor of the conversation ?—No. He said, " Mr. Wrigg has got the war medal too." I said, "Yes." He said, "Is he entitled to it ? Ido not think he is." I said, " I knew that years ago." 128. Did Mr. Lingard suggest to you the conversation you had with Colonel St. John ? Did he suggest to you the conversation you have told us ?—No, he did not suggest it. 129. Did he suggest such a thing had occurred ?—He told me Mr. Wrigg had got the war medal. I said, " I know that." He said, " I hear he is not entitled to it." I said, " I know that." 130. Did he suggest to you that such a conversation as you have given to-day had taken place between you and Colonel St. John ?—He could make no suggestion, as I distinctly told him what the conversation was. 131. Did he prompt you as to what was supposed to have occurred ? Did he call to your recollection a conversation which he suggested you had had with Colonel St. John ?—No. 132. Did he suggest to you the conversation you have related to-day ?—No. 133. Did he write it down at the time in your presence ?—I did not see him. 134. Did he give you any conversation in writing?— No. 135. Did you ever subsequently give him a note of that conversation in writing?—No; no writing ever passed between me and Mr. Lingard. 13(5. If Mr. Lingard repeated the conversation you have told us occurred between Colonel St. John and yourself, if he was able to repeat that word for word, he did it simply upon his memory from what you told him in the street?— On his memory. 137. Though you wished to help him all you could?—l did not know at the time that any petition was contemplated. I said I would have nothing to do with it. 138. Mr. O'Meara.] Since you knew this petition was going to be presented to Parliament have any others waited upon you respecting this conversation you had with Colonel St. John ? —No one. 139. You have not been prompted by any person ?—No. 139 a. Mr. Field.] How long did you know Colonel St. John ?-- Since the beginning of the war ; since 1863, I suppose. 140. You knew him intimately?—l knew him intimately-before ever I came to Wellington. 141. Did you ever hear him mention any act of conspicuous bravery that Mr. Wrigg had done? —No. 142. Do you know Mr. Wrigg ?—Yes. 143. How long have you known him ?—Since 1869. 144. Have you known him anything like intimately ?—I was in office with him for seventeen years. 145. Did you ever hear him refer to any act of bravery on his (Mr. Wrigg's) part ? —Never. 146. You said just now you do not wish to say anything in disparagement of Mr. Wrigg?—Yes, not voluntarily. Mr. Hutchison : Before calling Sir Arthur Douglas to give evidence I should like to put in the depositions of a number of witnesses who have not been able to attend. The Chairman will remember the. circumstances of my attendance before the Committee, when I handed in certain nam es those of Arthur S. Ford, Albert Wood, John Forsyth Connelly, and Benjamin F. J. Edwards and you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Fraser subsequently saw me, and we discussed the matter. It was then that the Chairman suggested that as these witnesses would have to come from a long distance, and, as it would be rather expensive, we might get their statutory declarations. I then withdrew from calling them, and have now got their statutory declarations. Of course, they cannot be cross-examined, but the evidence is given in the form of statutory declarations, so that those making them would be liable to perjury if false statements were made. Mr. Wilford: I object to the w.hole of those statutory declarations being put in as evidence, Mr. Chairman. My objection to them is this : The fact that a statement has been made by a person not called before the Committee is not evidence. The fact of such a statement being recorded on documents setting out the statements of such persons who have not been called is irrelevant, and comes within the definition of hearsay evidence. The true test* of the question is, is it the best evidence procurable. If it is not the best evidence procurable, then it is secondary evidence, and the law says no secondary evidence is admissible where primary evidence can be obtained. 1 would