CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 7003, 28 April 1884, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Tim; quarterly meeting of the Chamber was held on April 10, Mr. Gravei Aickin ("VioePresident) in the ohair. Present: The Vlayor, Messrs. Peacock, McMillan, Morton, "Valle (3.), Jakins, Keid (J.), Olark (11.), Pierce. SPECIAL BUSINESS. The Chatruah said there was some special business oa the paper whioh Mr. Morton, who moved in the matter, wished to be taken first. He would consult the convenience of the other members whether the speoial buiinetß should precede the ordinary business. It was agreed that the special business should be taken first. 'ELECTION OF MEMBEBS. Mr. Morton said the position of Auckland was unoh that membership of the Chamber of Commeroe should have some guarantee as to the antecedents of those who wished to become members. He thought that- objectionable consequence might, readily follow (he eleotion of persons who might turn out to be disqualified by the charaoter or nature of their antecedents. All that he proposed was, " That a candidate should not be ballotted for until a week after being proposed had elapsed." The resolution of Mr. Morton was put and carried. THE BASQUE GAZELLE. The SEOBETABr read the following report of the oommittoe with regard to the legality of the seizure and confiscation of this vessel:—" The committee have to report that, in accordance with instructions from the Chamber, the Chambers of Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide had been communicated with as to the law in force in those places as to the seizure of vessels. As no replies had been received, the committee recommend the Chamber to move in the direction of getting some amendment of the law, to prevent the occurrence of Buoh seizures in future, and that the Auckland members of Parliament have their attention oalled to this matter, with a view to suah alteration for the coming session." . The Chairman believed it waß considered that in this case the law was undoubtedly strained against an individual who was innocent. But there was no doubt that the legal decision in this matter was sound. It operated, however, harshly against aa individual who was personally not at all guilty of the breach of the law.

Mr. Morton", in moving the adoption of the report, said that he had not been very well acquainted with this oase until he had recently looked into the particulars. He had aiuce than considered the whole of the faots. The vessel was seized in consequence of a breach of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1882, for smuggling tobacao. the offence was laid under the 201 st olause, which provided that every ship boat, together with any such spirits, opium, tobacco, snuff, cigars, eto., found on board shall be forfeited. In the same seation. it was enacted " that if it should be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commission that such spirits, opium, tobacoo, snuff, and cigars_ were on board without the knowledge or privity of the owner or master of such ship or boatthen the ship or boat might be delivered up. In this oase there was privity on the part of the master, but no privity on the part of the owner. The master had been charged, and upon inquiry he had been fined £100, so that there _ was nothing more to be said ia regard to him. But there was no privity on the part of the owner. It was thought that the owner (.Mr. Ellis) had been somewhat harshly de.ilt with. The subject had been brought before the New South 'Wales Parliament, and comments had been there made upon the case. Sir Fredk. Whitaker was in Sydney at the timo, and he was appealed to. But Sir Frederick Whitaker expressed his opinion that Mr. Ellis had been very leniently dealt with. It should also be stated that the law of New Zealand was but a copy of the law of England, whioh had operation in various colonies. He believed that it would be undesirable to take too absolute a position on a question of this kind. Mr. Peacock said that the law was taken to operate, not immediately a ainst the owner, but Bgainst the vessel —hioh was seized. The intended effect of such a law was no doubt to make owners cautious as to the oharacter of the | masters whom they appointed to their vessels. The question was not that an owner should be asked to pay a certain buui to get his vessel released, but that there should bo a law under which ho could know his actual position.; There could hardly be any objection to an amendment of the law whioh' w">uld prevent any suoh case happening in fnture if possible. Mr. G. P. Piebce thougl it was little use considering what might be the law of England in suoh cases. Thire was very little use passing resolutions on a matter of the kind.. The laws for the protection of the revenue must be enforced if all kinds of evasions were not to be. resorted to successfully. He knew of cases whioh went : even boyond the owner of the vessel.' : ' In one instance it touched a mortgagee, who lost both bis. vessel and his money. He would move an amendment that the report be

referred baok to the comniitteo for rectiosfdsn - tion. ■ . • ; Mr. Pbacock said that the action ot Mr. Morton had placed the committee in' a*om»what unfavourable lights - There was no didcv on the part of the committee to do mora thau recommend that the law on this subject should bj made more definite. If there were ala w bj" which the position of .vessels situated as . the- Gaaelte was could be more pnoUaly determined W would be' more satisfactory to all parties. Whatever offence the master had committed, the Teasel or its owner had. nob done it. The only thing contemplated by the committee was tho amendment of the law on the subject. The Matob : Mr. Ellis might have taken hill vessel if he had paid the £50. - The vessel US! seized merely daring the process of inquiry. There coald be Uttle doubt that suoh an inqoiry was necessary. Tho £50 was no dcabt to recoap the costs of the inquiry. _ Some each oost mart have been expected, and it arose from the ooQ" duct of the master of the vessel, and not from anything in the Customs law of New Zealand*. I shall second the proposal that the report fca referred, baclc to the committee. The Ohaikuak s*id that Mr. Ellis would probably have paid the £50 without hesitation but that he believed the proceedings taken out some stigma upon him. He said that he wished to have himself cleared from any dishonourtible privity with transactions of that kind. The amendment was carried. 4 THE WEST COAST BAIL WAT. 1 - The Sxoeeiabt nsad the report of the com' I mittee on this lubjuot as follows " The com' mittee being of opinion that the survey of th® West Coast line was not being pushed forward, as expeditiously as the central line, the hon«, the Minister of Publio Works was wired to that effect. The reply was that everything wif being done that can be done in the matter." THE MEW BAILWAT TABXTF. i> Mr. S. Vatlk, who has made a olose study of the railway tariff, addressed the Ohamber aft considerable length on the subject, showing thcr inoonsiitencies of the tariff. He moved, " That it be an instrnction to the committee to go Into the matters contained in the above resolution*. and consider the several questions embodied In them, and report to a future meeting." , The Ohaieiian seconded the motion, wMall was carried. . This concluded the business of the quarterly meeting.