IN THE HOUSE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12550, 11 July 1901, Page 3

IN THE HOUSE.

[From Our Correspondent.] ~ WELLINGTON, July 10. The business to-day went dancing away on two cross-cui'rents. One of these brought the House to the. Bank of New Zealand, and produced a discussion which enabled the Premier to clear the air considerably. The other took the House to the Bluff, Dunedin and other harbours contemned of late by the Admiralty and the Ophir's commodore, the peg on which Hie discussion was hung being the passing of the Bluff by the Tagus. The bank question arose out of some remarks made by the Premier in moving that the balance-sheet laid on the table yesterday should be printed. In the course of his remarks Mr Seddon objected to the. alleged determination of the directors to pay a dividend out of the increased profits of the past year. The bank, he laid it down, ought to dimmish its liabilities before paying dividends, referring pointedly to the liabilities under the Government guarantee, which remains exactly where it was while the position of the Assets Board has much improved. This was taken to be a threat to amend U\o law so as to prevent dividends from being paid without the consent of the Government. After discussion, not unmixed with chaff about newspapers, between. Mr Pirani and the Premier, the latter explained that ho had nob intended any threat, and had no idea of asking for an amendment of the Banking Act. He stuck to his guns, however, about the impropriety of paying dividends until the guarantee liability was lessened, maintaining that in the event of any further assistance being required or any renewal which would be asked for next year, a policy of consistent endeavour to improve the "bank's position would smooth the way greatly. Moreover, it was notorious that the shares of the Bank were becoming the object of increasing speculation, and acquiring a fictitious value. Therefore, he had spoken his mind plainly about a course with regard to the dividends which was forbidden to directors of other institutions in dmilar cases, and punishable. In this connection, he dispelled the notion that the Act is mandatory about the payment of dividends. It had been contended in support of this by Mr Allen, who read from the Act, that the surplus is directed to be divided—(l) £50,000 to the Assets Board; (2) dividend up to- 5 per cent; (3) remainder, if any, to the Assets Board. The Premier pointed out that No. 2 is not mandatory, but leaves the matter to the discretion of the directors entirely, and the explanation silenced the criticism, which, up to that point, had been very persistent on the subject. Mr Seddon did not resume his seat without warmly complimenting the bank on the successful management disclosed by the balance-sheets. Regarding the naval matter, the Premier, when he had told the story of the Tagus prevented by' the Admiralty from entering the Bluff on account of having, a single screw, stigmatised such conduct .in scathing terms, and Sir Joseph Ward, following, did the same, carrying the subject further amid the plaudits of the House., Captain Russell gallantly attempted to divert the blame from the naval officers by explaining that they had to follow the regulations laid down for their guidance under pain of court martial and danger of dismissal from the service, but- as S:i' Joseph pointed out that larger ships had been brought into these harbours by the Admiral and other officers, and as Mr'Seddon showed that the transhipment of troops which had been' allowed in the case of the Britannic had been refused in the case of the Tagus, the Captain's intervention was hardly, successful. During his remarks he tried to sit on the member for Lyftelton, but found that gentleman very much alive and bustling. The only question of general importance asked from Canterbury came from the member for Riccarton, who succeeded in getting a; powerful light thrown upon a very important subject. Mr G W. ■ Russell asked the Premier if the Government had promised that';the members of'any Roval Commission' set -up during the recess shall be paid a larger sum thin is provided by the- Disqualification Act, Mid if tii« v so pi'PP ose ™" thev sutl " mit an amendment of the Act named, instead of making the payment by, vote under the provisions of the Public Revenues Act of last session? He said that he thought that, in some instances, members of Commissions were.-expecting more than a £ a dav, which is the limit under the Act. He "would not say that a £ -a'day was enough, but only that the law ought to 1)3 respected. The Premier said that it was very certain that the 'disqualification Act ought to be amended. At present all were not on the sanie plane. Newspaper proprietors and lawyers could draw public money without stint and still be pure, while" others Avere restricted to £SO a year. The Act was one of the greatest reflections on Parliament, and showed that the time of its passing must have be'en a corrupt one. There was, however, no intention at present to have the Act altered. It was beyond doubt, at the same time, that the cost of serving the- public- on some of these Commissions was more than the amount authorised by law. For his part, he did not think the colony ought to allow members of Parliament affected to be at a loss. To- an interjection of "Why not?" he replied that, amongst other reasons, the ratio of selection would be considerably limited. The best way, he thought, would be to amend the law. That was his private opinion, bub the difficultv would be the usual objection to. retrospective legislation. The Government, now that the honourable member had called their attention to tho matter, would consider it very seriously.