The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

CROSSFIRE IN COMMITTEE lt) EVIDENCE" GWEN 0F MURPHY GETTING ANY DIRECT REWARD McCrea Also' States Wal- dron Did Not Say That He Did ward J. Murphy (Conservative, St. Patrick) had been paid to promote a bill in the Ontario legislature to re- peal the Optometry Act passed in 1931. he had no thought that Mr. Murphy had received any monetary reward. other than the fact that he had accepted a retainer to defend certain persons before the board which the bill he sponsored would abolish. Gordan Waldron. K.C.. stated yester- day before a special committee of the House meeting to consider the charges. Witt Decide on Report. ._.._r.. .1» winnlscu n] B 'lCNount. Dc. [cg-gm; 99mmetry Board um Ed- After hearing Mr. Waldron repeat his declaration that Mr. Murphy had committed a corrupt act. and had rendered himself liable to unseating proceedings. and his assertion that when he made the statement he was privileged to do'm, being before a court. the committee adjourned until the call ot the Chairman. When it meets again it will decide what ne- port to make to the Legislature. Hon. Charles Mecrea, Chairman. stated at the conclusion there was no evidence that Mr. Murphy had received any direct remuneration,' and that Mr. Waldron did not say that he did. Wit- mosses called dented knoWledié 31.31:. Murphy receiving any payment tor 1nrroAuelng the bill. Seldom have such dramatic pro- ceedings taken place at Queen's Park. Nothing exactly similar has happen- ed in the memory of veteran legisla- tors. Every moment was packed with interest. First Mr. Waldron repeated his charges. in effect: he then de- clared that the legislature had no power to deal with him, unless it first amended the statutes ot the Prov- ince. He defied the committee to send him to "the Tower." stating that if this were done a writ of helices corpus would be sought immediately. Net "Mrared by Threat." He believed he had a. witness who would give evidence of other pay- ments to Mr. Murphy. When asked to give the name of this witness, he flatly refused, and when Mr. MoCrea. suggested that the committee might use the powers it possessed in order to get the name, asserted: "I refuse to be swayed by your threat." And when witnesses were called. s number suggested try Mr. Waldron. he declined to question them, saying they had been called by the committee and not by him. He would examine them it the committee "pursued him further." Late in the sitting, Mr. Murphy de- clared that Mr. Weldron was "lying" when he said that he had a witness who. he believed, would say that other payments had been made. and Mr. Murphy at one stage demanded that the hearing be completed during the day. so that "Mr. Waldron could not get. any one to come here and swear falsely." Every Chair ls Taken. swirling up and down the carpet before the committee, Mr. Waldron tall and leonine. now defiant. again humorous. sometimes speaking in . Bery manner. and at other times re- strained. was the focus of all eyes. The room was filled with mm and memhers. eyerv chat Being taken. Mr. Murphy. sitting in the front row, standing up now and min to cross veMI swords with his accuser. was dressed in a green-striped suit, winged collar and green tie. He also, most Ity. tt frhyired in . Marin: try GWEN Hamilton Cassels told the commit- tee he had retained Mr. Murphy to act for the Ritholz employees because ot his reputation as a, criminal lawyer. and the employees were charged with a quasi-criminal offense. He also knew that Mr. Murphy was familiar with the Optometry'Act. A tee of $200 had been agreed upon. but, was not yet paid ovt'r. Some of the witnesses were in the room, and the others were sent for. Of eight, seven stated def1nitely that they knew of no payment to Mr, Murphy for sponsoring the bill. These wit- nesses included: W. A. Summers. Wil- liam Matthews; James C. Thompson. Dean of the College of Optometry, and Ivan B. Knott. - Mr. Waldron-you are also considc ering me, I hope. It I am convicted I can be sent to the Tower. Continuing his statement. Mr. Wal- dron said: "The words complained of were absolutely privileged. They were spoken by me as counsel in the con- duct of an inquiry bya statutory body duly appointed to adjudicate upon and determine the rights ot all partics." Knew of No Payment. Mr. McCrea also pointed out that it was Section 49 of the Legislative Assembly Act which was involved. "That is the outstanding issue as tar as Mr. Murphy's position in the House is concerned, and we are also. con- sidering every other member." Mr. McCrea-LThere is no prosecu- tion. We will give you the greatest latitude. Mr. Waldron---, cannot be tried by the Legislature except on an infrac- tion of the law of the land or a. law of the Legislature. If you are trying me, there is no evidence of any in- fracticn of the law of the Legisla. ture when the prosecution is closed. of the time. had fire in his eye. At one stage. during a recess, Mr. Mur- phy objected to Mr. Waldron leaving the room. Mr. McCrea pointed out that the reference to the committee did not refcr to Section 54. What was re- ferred to was a. matter involving the dignity of the House. inasmuch as the charge was against a member of the House. Mr. Murphy did not have to mow anything. he said. but; it was up to the ccmmittec to decade it the dignity of the House had been in- fringed upon. No Evidence of Infraction. Mr. Waldron admitted the words ascribed to him and read trom a pre- pared report. Mr. Murphy had not proved his charge that he. Waldron, had assaulted, insulted, or libeiled him. as in the meaning of Section 54 of the Legislative Assembly Act. "He does not say that I have assaulted him, and I say with the utmost con- fidence that I have neither insulted nor libelled him." he said. "And it is also noteworthy that May records only two proceedings like this In respect of spoken words; one was 400 years ago, and the other was a speech of Daniel O'Connell in 1838." March 29 Somewhat of a surprise amendment to the Corporation Tax Act was in- 'troduced by Premier Henry yesterday in the Ontario Legislature. the pur- pose of which will, it is said, techni- cally disprove the assertion that the only new tax this year would be that under amendments to the Succession Duty Act. Provisions of the bill as explained by the Premier will make the act coincide with Federal legis- lation and simplify registrations. It is estimated, however, that the Prov- ince will receive about $20,000 ad- ditional revenue. HENRY PROPOSES Ti) AMEND TAX ACT Bill Would Effect Coinci- dence With Federal Legis- lation, Is Claim J. E. Jamieson (Conservative. Sim- COC Southwest) introduced legislation which would allow the Ontario Mu- nicipal Board to assess costs on ma- terials, such as poles. against the highways. when telephone 1'mes are destroyed in construction of roads. At present labor it. the only 21cm an which an Assessment can be m. Mr. Jameson explnm ,, _. A"