POLITICAL GOSSIP.

Evening Star, Issue 7656, 5 July 1888, Page 1

POLITICAL GOSSIP.

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, July 4. Retrenching tbe Working Man. Some consternation will be caused throughout the country by the proposals for further retrenchment embodied in th resolution brought forward by the Retrenchment Committee. The Premier made it very clear yesterday that if he accepted the proposal it would be necessary to apply the pruning knife to those in receipt of salaries under LISO, and that the laborer earning his few shillings a day must bear his share of the reductions. The Premier was careful to insist on the direction in this matter coming from the House. In assuming this attitude he evidently anticipated a storm of public opinion. The field for retrenchment in small salaries was touched upon by Mr Withy, who, in moving the resolution, said that the Civil Service salaries alone under Ll5O amounted to L 366.000, and including wages of all mechanics, laborers, and assistants, the total was L 639.000. Thus the reduction now asked for was less than previously sought and was spread over a much larger area. He believed that the wages of the public servants must be reduced, and it had been made abundantly clear that the wages in the Railway Department were higher than the market value of the labor. He did not think they should reduce the workmen's wages to the lowest average, but to a fair medium, and he would prefer a higher than a lower average. Mr Ooldie spoke rather in the direction of reducing the larger salaries than of going for the lower wages. Amendments In the Tariff. Mr Mosa has represented to the .Premier that the Australian colonies have a duty of 15 to 20 per cent, on boats, while the pine of which they were built is brought in free; also the necessity of a rebate on opium used in bond for the manufacture of laudanum. The Premier agreed with both suggestions, but said that it was too late to alter the schedule of the Bill now, as to do so would require its recommittal, and cause perhaps great delay. For the present, therefore, nothing could be done in the Act, but he would see if relief could not be granted by regulation on opium or other chemicals used in bond. The Contagious Diseases Act. I advised you a fortnight ago that the Committee to which Mrs Mary Steadman Aldis's petition against the Contagious Diseases Act had been referred would report that they had no recommendation to make. The report of the Committee to this effect was brought up at the sitting of the House to-day, with several similar petitions. The customary formula of laying the report on the table was pursued, but quite an exciting debate arose on a proposal by Mr Fish "that the evidence should be printed." Mr O'Conor opposed the motion on the grounds of useless expense. It transpired, however, that the evidence was really that of Sir G. Grey, which had been taken at great length, and which Dr Hodgkinson said contained valuable information on an important social question. Sir John Hall, Messrs Peacock, Thompson, Hobbs, Levestam, and Dr Fitchett, opposed the proposal, and even. Mr Turnbull failed to see why they should print the evidence of Sir George Grey more than that of any other member. Mr O'Callaghan insinuated that this was an attempt on Sir G. Grey's part to secure the printing of his speech in the debate, which the House had excluded from ' Hansard.' Sir G. Grey repudiated this accusation, and said it was unjust to orush out evidence obtained by many years' thought and trouble. Mr Blake (the chairman of the Committee) and Mr R. Reeves said that there was nothing in the evidence that might not be read by anyone, but the House decided by 30 to 41 not to publish it. A proposal by Mr Peacock, to refer the quesjj tion of printing the evidence to the Reporting Debate Committee, was negatived by 42 to 26, and Mr Seddon's amendment referring the whole question back to the Committee was lost on the voices. Judge Macdonald In Defence. It will be recollected that in speaking to the Mokau Jones case about a fortnight ago Mr Hamlin passed some severe strictures in reference to Judge Macdonald's administration as head of the Native Lands Court. Mr Macdonald generally gives a denial to the charged made; and as to the alleged admission that the Attorney-General had told him that he had exceeded his duty and that his law was wrong, he says: " I know of nothing upon which this allegation can be founded, save some remarks that passed between myself and Sir F. Whitaker, and myself and Wetere, in which I certainly showed a doubt regarding Sir P. Whitaker's opinion that by reason of the Special Powers and Contracts Act, 1885, the Administration Act applied to Mr Jones in relation to Mokau Mohakatino No. 1. Certainly I never made such an admission as that alleged, and Sir F. Whitaker never made to me any such observations as those I am stated to have admitted he had made." Questions of Privilege. Two questions of privilege are raisedin connection with this vindication. The letter has been laid upon the table of both Houses by command of the Governor, and a very nice question is connected with this proceeding. In the Legislative Council they were called upon to consider allegations made in the House of Representatives which is unconstitutional and impossible and of which they know nothing; yet they cannot move without an appearance of disrespect to His Excellency. The probable solution will be the withdrawal of the letter by the Governor, who of course acts on the advice of his Ministers throughout. As to the letter in the House, the question is raised: By what right anyone outside is allowed thus to enter into controversy with a member speaking in his place ? Such a Sroceeding is new, and is regarded as a angerous precedent. The Pellchet Bay Station. The resolutions recently passed at a meeting of citizens of North Dunedin having been considered by the Public Petitions Committee, they have reported that, having already expressed their opinion in favor of all trains to and from Dunedin stopping at Pelichet Bay, they have no further recommendation to make. The request that the station itself may be enlarged without encroaching on Albany street has been referred to tbe Government for consideration, The Seacllff Asylum Building. A very bulky document was laid on the table of the House this afternoon—viz., the evidenoe and report of the Commission ap pointed to inquire into the condition of the Seacliff Asylum building. The report has already been published in Dunedin; but, subsequent to its being made, Mr W. N. Blair tendered a written statement, which contains the following reply to the Commis sion's findings:— 1. The Commissioners are under a misappiebension in saying that certain letters from the architect, with reference to the isolating drain, were not answered for thirty months. It is shown that the letters were answered in writ* iug as well as by the action taken. 2. The conclusion, with reference to the responsibility of the Public Works Department, is based on the assumption that the lettets were not answered. As the premises are proved to be incorrect, the conclusion must fall to the ground, 3. The misapprehension with reference to the answering of letters has arisen front the mixing up of two sets of correspondence, one about the

uolatitiK drain. ™' l tllP ot,lPr abr,nt HU|,faM ' "'"up'till April, 1881, when Ih Hector made his'lost visit to Seacliff, the architect advocated the isolating drain. He then abandoned this scheme, and went in for surface drainage, which was carried out to his own plans, and after the 20th March, 1881, no communication was received from the architeot about the isolating drain till the 12th May, 1884, shortly after the cracks had appeared. 5. I never expressed the opinion that tho construction of the isolating drain should be deferred until the ereeti.nof the building was approaching completion. 6. The isolat Dg drain originally proposed was put in behind the damaged portion of the building so soon as the crack appeared, and two other drains of a similar character were put in subsequently; but they have had little or no effect in preventing settlement, thus showing that isolating drains are not the remedy for the evil. , , ...... 7. The drawings produced show that the foundation walls at the damaged portion . f the building have not been carried out according to contract, that the bearing surface has in every instance been seriously reduced. It is also in evidence that the settlement has been stopped or lessened by widening the foundations, thus showing that insufficient foundations are the cause of the damage. . , 8. The Commissioners find that certain ot the ambulatory walls have been erroneously treated as an extra, but they do not give the value of this and other works in the same position. According to the inspector's evidence, the contractor has been over-paid on the concrete foundations to the extent of L1.7C4 3a Ud.