1.—14.

22

[W. C. WHITLOCK.

letter? —I could not say really. I think I told him that Mr. Symes had not helped us in the matter. 29. Was there any reason why either you should or should not tell the Minister about the matter?— There was no cause for me to show it to hini, but it was necessary for me to show it to Mr. Jennings. Mr. Skerrett: This is distinctly cross-examination. The object of examination in chief is io get the witness's statement. The Chairman: Certainly. 30. Mr. Myers.] You spoke to Mr. Jennings: what did you say?—l had cause tn show the letter to .Mr. Jennings, but not to the Minister. 31. You were asking him to obtain for you an interview with the Minister?— Yes. 32. And your paper was at once put on the list of papers for Government advertisements?— Yes. 1 sent in formal application. 33. After conference with the Minister? —Yes. 34. And your request was acceded to?— Yes. 35. Mr. Skerrett.] Do you remember whether both or any one of the newspapers which were amalgamated with the Stratford Evening Post was on the list of papers to which Government advertisements were-given? —The Egmont Settler was the only one on the list, I understand. 36. The Egmont Settler ceased to exist upon the constitution of the Stratford Evening Post? —Yes, that is so. 37. And in the ordinary departmental course would be struck off the list to which Government advertisements would be sent? —Yes, when it ceased to exist. 38. Now, before any application was made to .Mr. McCluggage, did your company forward any application to the Government Department to have the Strafford Erenin;/ Post included among the list of papers receiving Government advertisements? —I have an indistinct recollection of a letter coming back from Mr. Hugh Pollen saying the matter was under consideration. I have not had the files to look through. 39. You have an indistinct recollection that application may have been made to the Depart ment to put the Strafford Evening Post mi the list, because you say you recollect receiving a letter from Mr. Pollen, in which he said the matter was under consideration? —Yes. 40. Now, I understand you to say that your recollection of the interview with the Minister is that you did not show him Mr. Symes's letter, or refer to the contents?— Yes, that is so. 41. Did the Minister explain to you the reason why the Egmont Settler was struck off the list of papers receiving Government advertisements? —I believe he did. 42. Now, did you have any difficulty in getting the .Minister to accede to your request to put the newspaper upon the list of newspapers receiving Government advertisements? —I had no difficulty at all. The matter was attended to practically at once. It seemed to me almost within a week. 43. Now, was the granting of the request trammelled by any conditions of any sort or kind? — Absolutely none. Mr. Myers: I do not want to raise any objection, but I understood my friend was representing Mr. Symes, and these questions are all directed to the case of the Government. Mr. Skerrett: I can elicit all the facts. Mr. Myers: I do not want to raise any objection, but these questions are not relative to the case against Mr. Symes, but to the case of the Government. Tin '-'hairman: Yes, I understand this is not a case against the Government. Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward: Mr. Hine has stated in the House that it is a case against the Government. Mr. Hine, in his general statement in the House, included this as one of the " Tammany " charges. There can be no question about that. Mr. Myers: He referred to the Dominion, I think. I mjiy be wrong, but Ido not think you will find he referred to anything in connection with this paper against the Government. The Chairman: You are making a charge here against a particular person named, not against the Government. Mr. Myers: True. The Cludrman: There is nothing in this charge against the Government that they have or have not done anything they should not have done. Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward: What is the object of Mr. Myers in asking the witness if I ever saw the letter or discussed the contents with him? What is the object of it if it is not to implicate me ? Mr. Myers: I think this arose out of Sir Joseph Ward's question to a previous witness. I asked what the other witness did in consequence of the receipt of the letter. Mr. Skerrett: I think Sir Joseph Ward stated at the table that he had not seen the letter. Bight lion. Sir J. G. Ward: Mr. Myers asked Mr. Anderson as to whether Mr. Whitlock was not asked to take that letter to Wellington for the purpose of interviewing the Minister. The Chairman: I think, Sir Joseph, that nothing has come out directly or indirectly involving or connecting the Minister with the charge. Mr. Myers: Mr. Skerrett has said that Sir Joseph said at the table that he did not see the letter, but I did not hear Sir Joseph say that. Right lion. Sir J. G. Ward: 1 have not seen the letter till now —I said I had not. The Chairman: There is no charge in this case against the Minister by Mr. Hine. 44. Mr. Skerrett (to witness).] Did the political character of the paper alter in consequence of the interview with the Minister?— No. 45. May I inquire what was the general tone of the newspaper during the succeeding electoral contest? —It did not support either candidate very strongly. 46. You have not got any specimens of the leading articles?—No, I have not.