The Dominion.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IX, Issue 145, 5 June 1919, Page 5

The Dominion.

COMING HOME.

Following Hawke’s Bay men, Waimana’s draft, are due at Auckland, on June 30th :— • ’ Hawke’s Bay.—H. H. Cantwell, De La Maye, R. R. Gibson, A. Hay, J. Moore.

Hastings.—E. P. Anderson, H. L. Bainbridge, Lance-Corporal W. H. J. Burnett (M.M.), L. Collinge, L/ Corp!. A. E. Curtis, Corpl. W. Frank lin, R. Haliburton, W. J. Halstead, W. C. Hope, W. Lyndon, E. F. McGrane, J. McKuin, Sergt. A. D. Murphy, U. T. Pohat, H. J. Robinson, F. L. Thomas, A. J. Vallance, A. W. Whyte.

Napier.—C. G. Bignell, Corpl. G. D. F. Broadbent, O. Byrne, L._ L. Cameron, L/Corpl. J. J. Dalgleish, G. F. Dennett, W. H. Elliott, E. A. Feierabend, E. Grant, J. Grant, C. L. Hennum, W. T. Lampshire, J. N. Nicholson, W. O’Brien, A. Osborne, J. Parkes, C. A. Preis, P. Quinn (M.M.), Sergt. H. Richardson, G. Roche, H. E. Scheele, Sergt. R. R. Smale, S. Smith (M.M.), J. Strother, H. J. Sweeney, W. D. Towers. Dannevirke.—C. L. Adams, D. M. Anderson, Sergt. L. B. Anderson, P. L. Barrett, H. Boswell, G. H. C-arston, H. J. GaUaway» L/Corpl. F. T. J. Hook, A. L. Middleton. Wairoa. —'Corpl. E. A. Chadwick, J. Clune, W. Condon, H. H. Fawcett J. A. Jerram, C.Q.M.S. W. G. Jerram, R. H. Ke er, Corpl. A. Lewis, L/Corpl. D. Mair, J. Montgomery, N. L. Phillips, W. F. Shaw, J. Simpson, Corpl. B. F. Ward. Taradale.—D. Morrissey.

Clive.—F. J. Taylor, G. Thompson. Puketapu.—L/Corpl. C. H. Tong. Waipaiwa.—F. Bocking, R- D. Bruce, E. J. Donghi, Corpl. S. J. Pepper. Porang-ahau.— R. Scott. Waipukurau.—F. R. Buttery, Geo. Cocks. Matamau.—W. Bowden. Takapau.—Sergt. A. H. Warren. Norsewood. —H. O. Christoffersen, W. A. Mackie. Pukehou.—Sergt. A. R. Dixon. Maraekakaho.—K. P. McDonald, W. H. Turner. Havelock North.— J. N. Adamson, J. Thomas. Makotuku.—W. J. Mildon, C. Rock. Taloga Bay.—J. M. Griffin. Wairoa Bay.—l. R. Lobb. Woodville.—H. A. Giles. SOLDIERS’ PRIVATE DEBTS. Wellington, June 4. An Order-in-Council has been promulgated amending the regulations recently issued for the protection of soldiers and discharged soldiers. The definition of a recently discharged soldier is amended to include a soldier in the twelve months immediately succeeding his return, instead of six" months a.s in the original regulations. It is further provided that nothing in the regulations shall apply to proceedings taken in respect to the balance for the time being of an account current of any soldier or discharged soldier with any bank, or approved trading company, or approved merchant, or with spect to any iifortgage, bill of sale, or other security securing such account current, and all such proceedings may be taken accordingly without the consent of the AttorneyGeneral. For the purposes of this clause an approved trading company or approved merchant means .any company, firm or person approved in that behalf by the Attorney General.

N.Z. MINERAL RESOURCES. MINING BURSARIES ASKED FOR. Dunedm, June 4. A deputation representing tire School of Alines, waited on tne Hon W. D. S. MacDonald, and urged the Department of Alines to offer, say, ten bursaries of £5O with fees for students living away from home. It was pointed out that at the end of the course, the Government would have a claim on the services of the students. The deputation also suggested that better use be made of the staff investigating mining. Professors Park, Waters, and Benson would be able to do something regarding research into the mining problems of the country. The Aim ist er expressed agreement with the deputation. Last year only one man won a bursary. If he had not power to do what was asked, he was prepared to ask his colleagues to vote what was necessary. The country could well afford to have a thorough and expert examination of its mineral resources. TARIFF REFORM. TK> RECTIFY ANOMALIES. Wellington, Juno 4. Giving evidence before the Industries Committee AV. N. Montgomery, Comptroller of Customs, described the measures taken in Australia to regulate the tariff. A Tariff Board had been established, having general functions relating to trade and industry. The board had no power to amend the tariff. It merely made recommendations. He understood the recommendations had not had very much influence with Parliament in Australia. The process of tariff amendment in Australia was the same as in New Zealand. Under the Australian tariff New' Zealand was treated as a foreign country. New Zealand gave Australia preferential treatment. A reciprocal tariff treaty arranged with Australia by Air. F. Al. B. Fisher lapsed before completion owing to the change of Government in the Commonwealth. There had been cases of deliberate dumping of overseas goods in New Zealand with the object ot killing local industry. Replying to a question, Mr. Alontgomery said the Government had no special power at present to prevent dumping from overseas countries, but he had submitted a clause somewhat similar to the law in operation in Canada. The clause had the approval of the Minister-of Customs. It was not proposed to interfere with dumping in cases where no local industry was threatened. He believed New Zealand should have an evolutionary tariff instead of a fixed one. The existing tariff was not sufficient elastic, and there was no doubt it had hampered the establishment of industries in the Dominion. Ho had prepared an amendment to the Customs law which he understood the Alinister was prepared to place before Parliament at- the first opportunity. The amendment was designed to rectify anomalies and remove conditions that' had been injurious to New Zealand manufacturers. The clause provided that in the case of articles admitted free the Minister should have power to impose a preferential duty in favour of the British dominions.

THE MEAT TRUST. N.Z. TO HELP TO FIGH>IT. Dunedin, June 4. In reference to controlling or arranging prices in his speech, at the South Island Dairy Association dinner, Hon. W. D. S. MacDonald said he had received information from England which led him to believe that New Zealand was going to be asked to help Britain light the Meat Trust. They would have to come to a standing agreement to sell toe produce of the Dominion at certain prices in London and if the trust brought the prices down they would have to beat it on its own ground. A suggestion on these lines nad come from England. He was not yet prepared to aisclose the exact terms, out he was calling the leading producers together to discuss matters bearing on the welfare of the people ol tms country. THE LONGTON CASE. STATEMENT BY MR. McVILLY. Wellington, June 4. The General Manager of Railways, Mr. K. \V. McVilly, in the course of a statement regarding the Longton case, says:—lhe question for the consideration of the department was whether Longton who tlie Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fitted for and deserved promotion to a higher grade. The regulations of the department definitely provided that the road to promotion should be efficiency, merit, good conduct and suitability. It was tne practice to review the railway staff once a year. Vvhen the review of 1918 was made it was considered that Longton by reason of his insubordinate conduct was not suitable tor promotion to the next grade, and it was against that decision that he appealed. Promotion to tlie next grade would have placed Longton in a position of responsibility where Jje would have to control and maintain tne discipline of a staff varying in number according to his location. It was clear from me board's decision that tney recognised Dongton was insubordinate and deserving of punishment. ••Surely,” Mr. Met illy states, “the interval which separates a member meriting punishment from one meriting promotion is sulnciently great to need ifO empnasis. Tlie department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longtou nor has it inflicted direct punishment tor insubordination. What has been done m eiiect places Longton in exactly the same position as any other member who is considered to be disqualmeu for promotion by reason of unsatislactory uurK or conduct oi any Kind.” The view taken by the department was that the promotion of Dougton would place a premium on insubordination and in discipline would have a most pernicious influence on the staff of the service. The Minister had on more than one occasion, replying to representations for tne abolition oi the veto, stated that he was willing favourably to consider this request provided the department had proper representation on the board. The suggestion for the alteration of the constitution of the board m this direction was rejected by the societies representing the employees That being the present position, it was clear that public interest must be protected by tne right of veto being retained bv the responsible authority. The statement concludes by pointing out that unanimous decisions of the board have been vetoed by each successive Minister for Railways from the inception oi the board. FIRE. BLAZE AT WELLINGTON. Wellington, May 4. At 3.22 this morning a fire was discovered in a big structure known as Brouse’s Building, Taranaki street, Wellington. Though confined to the interior the blaze did a considerable amoung of damage, estimated at well over £uO(JO. The lire originated on the first floor of the building, occupied by the Salvation Army as a tailoring department, and by the time the brigade arrived on the scene the flames had made their way to the second floor, which the Defence Department used as a store. By good work the brigade saved this from any serious damage. The loss suffered by the Salvation Army •>as, however, considerable, amounting to about £4500. The ground floor was untouched. Portion of the building extends to the fourth story, in which several people resided, and it was fortunate for them that the fire was prevented from making further progress, as the brigadesmen and police experienced difficulty in removing the occupants. The building was owned byMessrs. Dwan Bros, and T. and Vv. Young, and was insured in the Commcrmercial Union and Ocean offices for £80(10. The Salvation Army’s stock was covered by a policy of £2900 in the Atlas Insurance office.

IN DIVORCE. £3OO DAMAGES. Auckland, June 4. An undefended divorce petition, in which £5OO damages were claimed against co-respondent, was heard at the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve. The petitioner was Harry Jane, and the respondent was Lulu Jane. Arthur Hope was cited as co-respondent. No defence was offered either to the petition or to the claim for damages. The jury awarded petitioner £3OO damages, and a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months, with costs on the lowest scale. BROOKS v. BROOKS. £1250 DAMAGES AWARDED. Wellington, June 5. This morning, in the Supreme Court, it was announced that the divorce case, Albert E. O. W. Brooks v. Cecelia Myrtle Brooks and Donald McKenzie in' which petitioner claimed £4OOO damages, had been settled, the corespondent consenting to the verdict of the jury for £1250 damages with costs. The Chief Justice explained to the jury that the money would not go to petitioner but would be set aside for the benefit of the children and possibly the wife. Replying to counsel ,the Judge said respondent, as well as petitioner, was entuled to costs. The jury returned a formal verdict for £1250 and costs.