LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1746, 23 August 1905, Page 19

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

TUESDAY,' AUGUST 15. The Cquncil met at 2.30 p.m. NEW BILL. The Hon Colonel Pitt gave notice that next sitting day he would introduce the Maori Hinds Councils Act, 1905. The Council adjourned at 2.50 p.m., as a mark of respect to the late Hon Mr Taiaroa. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST IG. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. FIRST READINGS. The Shipping 'and Seamen’s Act Amendment Bill was received from the House of Representatives and read a first time. . The Maori Land Councils Act, 1905, was introduced by the Hon Colonel Pitt, and read a first time. MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE. The Mutual Fire Insurance Act Amendment Bill (Hon Mr Kelly) was taken in committee, and reported with a minor amendment. MOTOR REGISTRATION. The Motor Registration Bill (Hon Mr Wigram) was taken in committee. An amendment, proposed by the Hen Mr Jenkinson, that registration of motors made by a registering authority shall have effect throughout the whole colony, was agreed to. The clause providing penalties for offences under the act fix a minimum fine of one pound,, and a maximum of ten pounds. On the motion of the Hon Mr Jenkinson, the minimum penalty was deleted, leaving fines for offences not to exoeed ten pounds. The bill was reported without further amendment. PUBLIC WORKS. , The Public Works Amendment Bill (Hon Mr Feldwick) was committed. The Hon Mr MACDONALD said the whole question of the bill had undergone an entire revolution since the judgment given a few days ago by the Supreme Court on the fourteen questions submitted to it. The judgment necessitated a review of the whole of the Public Works Act in connection with the width of streets. There were fourteen different conditions which required amendment, and what was required was not a bill which made confusion worse confounded, as the present one did, but a bill introduced iby the Attorney-'General, giving a complete remedy for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. He suggested that the motion to go into committee should he withdrawn, and the judgment of the Supreme Court printed and circulated to members, so that they could understand the position. The Hon Mr CARNCROSS moved the' adjournment of the debate. The motion for adjournment was agreed to on the voices. The Council rose at 3.55 p.m. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. FIRST READINGS. The Statutes Compilation Act Amendment Bill and the Marriage Validation Bill were read a first time. SHIPPING AND SEAMEN. The second reading of the Shipping and Seamen Act Amendment Bill .was

moved by the Hon Colonel Pitt* He stated that the time for application for service certificates had had to be extended owing to the Royal assent to the act not having been proclaimed in New Zealand until April • 4th last —too late for the purpose of the original act. As it would be necessary for the Royal assent to be received to the present act, he would move to extend the timelimit (December 31st, 1905) at present lciid down in the bill. In committee he would move, certain new clauses.

The Hon Mr RIGG asked if the hill would be referred to the Labour Bills Committee. The Engine-drivers’ Union desired to give evidence upon the bill. The second reading was carried, and the bill referred to the Labour Bills Committee 1

MAORI LANDS COUNCILS.

The second reading of the Maori Lands Councils Bill was carried on the voices.

EVIDENCE BILL

The Evidence Bill was taken in committee, and reported without amendment. The bill is. practically a consolidating measure. The third reading ivas carried on the voices. CRIMINAL CODE.

The Criminal Code Amendment Bill was further considered in committee. Clause 2 (proposing to amend section 193 of the principal act —relating to the crime of assaulting girls between the ages of twelve and Sixteen) was returned from the Statutes Revision Committee in a form to extend the timelimit for laying a charge ! of such offence from one month to six months. Further, the committee altered the original setting of the bill, so that “no person shall be convicted for any offence under the said section upon the evidence of the girl unless corroborated in some material particular by other testimony to the satisfaction of the Court.”

The Hon Colonel PITT objected to the amendment. In England, where the time-limit was six months, no such corroboration was required. He had been in communication with the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and Mr Justice Denniston, and both of them had given objections to the proposal. The Hon Mr McLEAN urged the committee to accept the amendment for the purpose of preventing blackmail, which was~a common thing. After further discussion the clause was agreed to. Tire bill was reported with amendments. The Council adjourned at 4.55 p.m. FRIDAY, AUGUST 18. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. FIRST READINGS. A hatch of private bills, including the Wellington City Streets Bill, was introduced from the House of Representatives, and read a first time. • CRIMINAL CODE. This bill as amended in committee provides that charges of assaulting girls between the ages of twelve and sixteen years may be laid up to six months after the committal of such offence. [The time-limit was formerly one month.] Power is given to clear any Court of justice in the interests of public morality of all persons excepting counsel for the parties concerned and any accredited newspaper reporter; and to forbid any report of proceedings in the interests of public morality. On the motion for the third reading of the bill, The Hon Mr Rigg moved that the bill be recommitted. Be objected to the time-limit for laying a charge in connection with crimes against girls being six months. He would move, if the bill was recommitted, that the time be reduced to four months. The hill dealt only with offences where the girl was over the age of twelve years and under sixteen years. There could be no doubt that girls at fifteen or sixteen years of age were women in every sense of the word. Bearing that in mind, he would draw attention to the savage nature of —a man was liable to five years’ imprisonment for attempting what' was really an offence against legislation. Where there was no consent the offence would come under a different section of the act. He objected to power being given to clear the Court of all persons hut counsel and reporters. That power struck at the fundamental principle of British, justice, namely, its publicity. The right of an open, fair, and free trial was one of the privileges hardly gained by the British people. If these I privileges were modified time by time all freedom would be gone. He urged members to stop encroachments for fear those encroachments might go too far. Since the women’s franchise had been introduced politicians had kept their ears to the ground to discover the direction the new vote would.move. The result was that we had been going in -a wrong direction as far as the legislation of the country was concerned. The bill at present gave permission to accredited reporters to be present in a Court at the hearing of certain cases, but the next thing would he an attack upon the reporters. It only wanted

some religious crank on the Bench to say that in the interests of public morality there should be rib publication, and then would come the beginning of the expulsion of the reporters. He considered that a Magistrate should have no power to clear a Court of any but young persons. The Hon T. Kelly considered the' Council had done a wrong thing in not agreeing to the proposal that corroborative evidence should be forthcoming in charges against men of committing certain offences. He pointed out the injustice of a youth of seventeen being punished for ail offence against a girl of sixteen years of age. Was not the girl of sixteen more advanced in life than a boy of seventeen years? Yet only one of two such young people committing an offence legislated against would be punished under the bill. He would support the Hon Mr Rigg. The Hon Mr Louisson considered the six months’ limit too long. He did not agree with the Hon Mr Rigg’s other contentions.

The Hon Colonel Pitt strongly urged the Council not to recommit the bill. No question had been raised in the Lower House and before the Statutes Committee "against the six months’ limitation. The Council should insist upon the six months’ limit. He would not go into the question of corroborative evidence again—he believed the Council had voted rightly on the question the previous day. In regard .to power to clear the Court, the power to exclude all or any persons during the hearing of certain cases was a discretionary one. As for whittling away individual rights, no one knew better than the Hon Mr Rigg that the rights of the individual were being continually made subservient to the public good. He drew attention to the fact that when the cases that were under discussion were before the Supreme Court, if all other persons were excluded from the hearing, the jury was there to represent the people. The bill was a good one.

The Hon Mr Ormond did not consider the six months’ limitation a reasonable one without the provision for corroborative evidence.

The Hon Mr Jones said that out of three experienced persons who gave evidence before the Statutes Committee two of them were in favour of the six months’ limitation, and the Council could not go wrong in following the path that those gentlemen s experience pointed to. x

The Hon Mr McLean asked for an opportunity to reduce the six months’ limitation. He moved that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering cladse 2 (time limitation) only. The Hon Mr Baldey considered grievous harm was possible under the six months’ limitation. Unprincipled people had an opportunity to levy blackmail under the provision. He objected to the Court being cleared of all persons. The original motion was “that the bill be read a third time,” and it was put from the chair that those words (quoted) stand part of the question. This was agreed to by 15 votes to 12, and the third reading was then carried on the voices. MAORI COUNCILS. The Maori Land Councils Bill was pr, through its committee stage with verbal amendments. MOTOR REGISTRATION. The Motor Registration Bill was set down for its third reading, but on tlhe motion of the Hon Mi* Wigram, who was in charge of it, a discharge was granted, in order that it might be recommitted. MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE. The Mutual Fire Insurance Act Amendment Bill was read a third time. STATUTES COMPILATION. The Statutes Compilation Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. The Hon T. Kelly explained that the bill was merely a technical amendment. The Council rose at 4.10 p.m.