t.—2a,

134

Mr. Samuel: It is not a question for Mr. Speaker ; he is not conducting the proceedings of this Committee. The matter is one for the Committee. The Chairman : It is true that Mr. Speaker is not conducting the Committee, but on points of this nature it may be necessary to have his opinion. Mr. Samuel: We are here for the.purpose of bringing out all the evidence. The Chairman : I have given a ruling as Chairman that the evidence is inadmissible. Mr. Samuel: You have not heard the evidence. The Chairman : I have asked the nature of it. Mr. Samuel: You have not heard the evidence : how can you give a ruling that it is inadmissible ? The Chairman : In the same way as Mr. Speaker asks the nature of a question before lie gives a ruling, and then from the nature of the question he gives his decision, so have I, from the nature of this evidence, decided that it is a reflection T>n other evidence and is not admissable as evidence. Mr. Vaile : There is no reflection ; it is evidence in rebuttal. The Chairman : It is in rebuttal of other evidence, and the witness is not here, and the latter cannot be cross-examined. Mr. Lye : I think that there has been too much latitude allowed. A witness gives evidence and every member of the Committee is allowed to cross-examine him. The Chairman : Is this a point of order 1 Mr. Lye : Yes. Too much latitude has been given. The witness has tendered his evidence. Every member of the Committee has had an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, and so also has Mr. Vaile. They should be satisfied with that, but repeatedly members of the Committee have asked leave to further cross-examine witnesses. Where are we going to end ? If a statementmade some days ago by one witness is to be contradicted where are we going to end ? The opportunity is past, and after a questioner has cross-examined a witness, if he finds he has omitted to ask certain questions he ought just to be content. We shall never finish this inquiry if this kind of thing is going to happen continually. We shall have evidence in rebuttal, then further evidence, and so on. Mr. Parsons is not here in person, and I think it would be quite improper to do anything else but accept the letter for the purpose of considering it when we are deliberating. The Chairman : I think we are agreed on that. I cannot alter my decision. Mr. Samuel: Speaking to the point of order, lam of opinion that as Mr. Parsons was not here when certain other witnesses were giving their evidence, and that as he read that evidence in the newspapers, he is at liberty to repudiate any statement which he considers to be of an unfair nature. As this letter has been sent in, lam going to move that it be read to the Committee. The Committee can then decide whether it shall be taken. There may be nothing in it. Personally, Ido not know what is in the letter, but we are here to elicit all the evidence we can, either for or against. This letter may be the one way or the other, but there cannot be any harm in it. You have allowed examination, cross-examination, and re-examination, and 1 contend, that Mr. Parsons has every right to put in any statement which he considers has a bearing on the evidence he has given. The Chairman : Your motion is tantamount to disagreement with the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Samuel: If you rule out any evidence I shall certainly disagree with that. I move that the Committee hear the letter from Mr. Parsons, and then we can consider if there is anything in it that the Committee thinks should not be put in as evidence. Then lam quite in accord that it should be considered on its merits. The Chairman : Then it goes in whether we agree or not; the damage is done then. Mr. Samuel: There is no damage. The Chairman : We do not know. Mr. Samuel: This man has been damaged in his standing. You finish with him, and inform him that you are finished with him. Then some one makes statements which are contrary to fact, and you do not give him an opportunity to contradict these statements. The Chairman : We have not told him that we were finished with him. The Committee never called him or any others called by Mr. Vaile. I did not tell him that we were finished with him. That was for him to say. He has assumed that himself. Mr. Samuel: The fact that he was allowed to be heard is tantamount to his being called by the Committee. Mr. Kyle : A Field Inspector from the Lands and Survey Department came here as a witness, and I certainly took exception at the time to the matter he brought into his evidence. He was not asked for the financial position of Mr. Parsons or even for the transactions of Mr. Vaile. When he was asked who sent him here he could not tell until you, Mr. Chairman, suggested to him who it was. The Chairman : I did not do anything of the kind. He said that his Department and the Commissioner sent him. Mr. Kyle : He could not answer, at all events, satisfactorily to me. He quibbled, and badly quibbled. The Chairman : I do not think it is fair to say behind a witness's back that he quibbled. Mr. Kyle : I would say it to his face. The Chairman : He is not here. Mr. Kyle : No, just as Mr. Parsons is not here. Mr. Parsons should be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence. I take it that Mr. Parsons's letter should be read. Mr. Semple: I can see no reason for refusing to allow the letter to be read. Surely if a witness has been misrepresented in his absence and desire the Committee to listen to a statement from him regarding the alleged misrepresentation, there is nothing wrong in the Committee listening to him. If there is nothing in the letter we can drop it, but in all fairness I submit if a witness has been mis-