TIED HOUSES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 232, 30 September 1902, Page 5

TIED HOUSES.

DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE

COUNCIL.

(By Telegraph—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, this day.

Again last night a good deal of feeling crept into the resumed debate in the Council on the motion to go into committee on the Hon. J. Bigg's Tied Houses BilL The Hon. W. T. Jennings, as chairman of the Select Committee on the bill, accused Mr. Rigg of having been guilty of exaggerating and distorting the actions of the committee in a manner unfair to any member of the committee. He had impugned his (Mr. Jennings) honour, and he would endeavour in reply to observe the Standing Orders. Mr. Rigg had constituted himself not only the judge but the Crown prosecutor and the jury, and found out from the start that everything was wrong. The committee was wrong, the chairman was wrong, everything was wrong except the hon. gentleman himself. He, however, had been given every opportunity. ■ Mr. Jennings went on to deny absolutely the allegations made as to the suborning of witnesses, and said he had never been under any obligation or compliment to a brewer, as the Hon. Mr. Rigg had. Mr. feigg: To what do yon refer?

Mr. Jennings said he referred to a testimonial in which Mr. Rigg received contributions from brewers.

Mr. Rigg at once rose and emphatically denied the statement, and stated that he had never received any contribution from a brewer. The Speaker said the denial must be accepted, and Mr. Jennings obeyed the ruling.

Continuing, he criticised Mr. Rigg's "fishing expedition" before the committee. The whole of the evidence submitted to the committee established that the publicans in tied houses were only compelled to take draught beer from the brewers, ahd in regard to bottled beer and spirits they were given a free hand. He expressed regret that the printed report of the evidence, taken before the committee, had not been available for reference yet, as it would have fully borne out what he had said and the conclusions come to by the committee. Mr. Rigg's own witnesses, except one, had all opposed the bill.

The Hon. C. Louisson expressed regret at the Hons. J. Rigg and Lee Smith having introduced the personal element into the debate. He, however, did not intend to follow that example, but could say that his record in New Zealand would compare very favourably with that of either of the hon. gentlemen. Though they had attacked him he proposed to speak of them as though they were two of the most honourable gentlemen he had ever had the pleasure of meeting. It was a monstrous proposition to say that because a man was connected with a certain business he should not take any part in legislation affecting it. If that were to be accepted one-half the members of the Council would be disfranchised from doing their duty. The remark that witnesses had been suborned was one of the most terrible and atrocious ever heard in the Chamber. Mr. Louisson reviewed- at some length the evidence given before the committee, and said that the Wellington witness, who was to have been the trump card (Mr. Searl), considered that this bill would be disastrous, and admitted that in the preceding month he had gone into a free house, and had made it a bound house because he could make more satisfactory financial arrangements through the brewer. Mr. Louisson also said a "mare's nest" had been discovered by the Hon. J. Rigg. The latter had made insinuations of improper treatment by the Crown Brewery Company of Mr. P. Burke, of Christchurch, in regard to the leese of Tattersall's Hotel. Mr. Louisson, however, read a letter and also a telegram from Mr. Burke, in which the latter said he was perfectly satisfied with the treatment, and the suggestion that the company had deprived him of portion of the lease was simply absurd. Mr. Burke also expressed regret that people should attempt to introduce discord where none existed. The position, summed up, was that the publicans received some financial assistance, and in return gave the brewer the trade that would have to be given to someone. The publican got beer of the best quality, and at a low rate. There could be no doubt in the mind of any persons considering the evidence in a common-sense way that the outcry against tied houses was unfounded. He thought the legislation against tied houses in 1895 would now be repealed. At 12.10 a.m. the Hon. J. M. Twomey moved to adjourn the debate. The Hon. J. Rigg protested against the adjournment as part of the organised tactics igainst the bill, and expressed regret that the Minister should have seen fit to throw in his influence on the other side. Mr. Rigg, after being pulled up by the Speaker for referring to the chairman of the committee as being biassed, said with some warmth: "This adjournment is one of a series of tactics that should not be encouraged by the Council." They had listened to long tirades of personal abuse, which would get a start and be hard to overtake if the debate was adjourned.

The Minister pointed out that Mr. Rigg's speech of last week had got a week's start, and had been equally strong and unqualified, and just as unreasonable. No harm would be done if the debate stood over till next day.

"These tactics," said the Hon. G. Jones, "are a glorious tribute to our cause." He and the Hon. Lee Smith criticised the Minister's action.

The Hon. J. M. Twomey denied being asked by the Minister to move the adjournment. On division the voting was even— eight each—and the Speaker decided in favour of the adjournment of the debate. So concluded for a time one of the most spirited debates of the Council this session.