ALLEGED POLITICAL PROSECUTION

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1847, 31 July 1907, Page 65

ALLEGED POLITICAL PROSECUTION

OPPOSITION MEMBER’S COMPLAINT A NOXIOUS WEEDS EPISODE. The Auckland members enlivened a mild stonewall upon Mr E. MeKenzie s Noxious Woods Ain on din out l>iJ! linns-* day afternoon by exhibiting considerable difference of opinion as to whether the measure should operate in Auckland province in addition io the Nelson land district, the area to which the House had previously by an amendment in committee limited the Bill. Mr Alison (Waitemata) was one of the Auckland members supporting the application of the Bill to that province, while Mr Stallworthy (Kaipara). who followed him, asked what right Mi Allson had to foist a spurned and rejected Bill upon the Kajpara constituency, j which had not authorised him to do so. I ‘*J Ttjiiloiidx* i* t lit. 1 turns >ujcl All otcillj worthy referring to his colleague, I “'when he was taken before the Court i -,ud lined I'm- failing to clear noxious I weJclM (.Crms of “Oh !”) j Mir Alison hotly retorted: "There j never was a prosecution in New Zealand i which was a greater discredit to the j Government than this prosecution j against myself. It was a political pro- | secution.” (Cries of "Oh!”) “lies it was” emphatically added the member 4 for Waitemata.

The Hon. T. Duncan (late Minister of Lands) said Mr. Alison had reflected very gravely upon the department in saying it was a political prosecution. Mr Alison: So it was! Mr Duncan replied that the officer in charge of the department at Auckland at the time was not the man to allow what Mr Alison alleged. Mr Alison: I made no reference to any one individual; I referred to the department. It was one of the most shameful and disgraceful prosecutions which ever took place in this colony, and this was admitted by everyone who knew it. Mr Duncan: I challenge the hon. member to prove what he has stated. The Hon. James Carroll remarked that Mr Alison had been brought before a tribunal for a breach of the law. Surely the tribunal could not be accused of bias? Mr Alison must have committed a breach of the law, because the tribunal fined him. Mr Alison explained that thirteen out of the fifteen sections which formed the subject of the prosecution had actually been sold by him eighteen months before, while with regard to the other two properties, there were three pieces of briar upon them, which took a man only four minutes to clear. There was a technical objection that noxious weeds grew on the property, and because of that he was fined. What that a culpability for which ho should have been prosecuted? There were other places upon which noxious weeds were worse, but there waa no prosecution. Mr Duncan had said to him, “Prove it,” but he could not do this off-hand, though he would if he was given more time. The Hon. T. Duncan concluded the incident by suggesting that it would have been only right and fair, if Mr Alison believed the prosecution to be political, that he should have communicated with the Minister.