THE CONSOLIDATED STATUTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14281, 1 August 1908, Page 7

THE CONSOLIDATED STATUTES

AX UNCOMPLIMENTARY PA\"GRAPH. THE COMMISSIONERS' CRITICISED. (Feom Ocr Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, July 31. Many members and officers. of both Houses of Parliament are very indignant because of a paragraph in tho report, of the commissioners appointed under "Tho Reprint of Statutes Act, 1895," (Kir Robort Stout, Dr Fitehctt, and -Mr W. S. Reid). The paragraph seemed ono of such unnecessary harshness that it was gonerally ignored by tho pressrjen engaged in reporting in Parliament House. In view of the discussions that took place in both Houses to-day, it is, however, now necessary to refer to it. It reads as follows:—" At tho outset, too, wo were entangled in much needless labour owing to tho suggestion of tho Government that wo should adopt a printed volume of Consolidated Statutes that had been prepared by our secretary, Mr Jolliffe injhis capacity of law draftsman. Wc took this volume and found it a hindranco instead of a help. It was more in the nature of a code than a consolidation, and although in itself an excellent pioco of draftsmanship, we found that Mr Jolliffe had ■■ given himself a latitude far in excess of anything authorised by tho act under which wc wore appointed, and'in departing from the language of the statute .he had in many instances departed from ' the law. Even whoro alteration in language did not necessarily result in altering the law, we found that in many of his acts, particularly those dealing with mercantile contracts, such as tho Bills of Exchange Act, the Chattels Transfer Act, and others, the provisions of which arc the subject of legal decisions, thero wore changes which we could not allow to stand. We had, therefore, to spend much, time and trouble in revising and restoring- the text. Moreover, as .was natural, Mr Jolliffe did not cite very heartily into the task, and it was not until wo were well outside the range of his volume that wo obtained the full benefit of his services. We are glad to say, however, that when this point was once reached ho eo-opeirated loyally in our work, and wo found his skill as a draftsman, both in language and arrangement, of the greatest value to us." Speaking in the House this afternoon on the Consolidated Statutes Enactment. Bill, the Prime Minister deprecated some comments made in the report of the commission regarding the work done by Mr Jolliffe. While they did not know the whole of tho circumstances, he felt sirrc that members appreciated tho work done by Mr Jolliffe. While tho commissioner had given praise to him in one part of the paragraph, they had taken away praise in another part of it. He felt sure he was only voicing the general recognition when he referred to the good and zealous work done by Mr Jolliffe. The Prime Minister's remarks were received with a chorus of "Hear', hears." Mr Massey referred to the same' matter. Ho though the reference to Mr Jolliffe'in the report of the commissioners was inadvisable, unnecessary, and paltry. (Hon. Members: "Hear,'hear.") It was a paltry attempt to belittle tho good work done by Mr Jolliffe. r (" Hear, hear.") Mr Jennings: It's the same old game. The man who does the work is neglected. Mr Maesey: I fee! very strongly about this, and I don't want to say any more. Mr Hanan also deprecated the remarks of the commission about Mr Jolliffe's work. The work had been a labour of lovo with him. Tho remarks no doubt owed their origin to a desire on the .part of some people who wished to do Mr Jolliffe out of some extra remuneration that his labours undoubtedly merited.—(" Hear, hear.") He hoped a vote would be placed on the Estimates in recognition of the splendid services he had given to tho Parliament and tho country in assisting- in this work.— (" Hear, hear.") In the Upper House, various councillors spoke very strongly about the paragraph. Mr Rigg said Mr Jolliffe was really the author of the work. He declined to believe the statements made in the report of the commissioners. He attributed 'the reference to professional jealousy and regarded it as a slander. The Hon. E. C. J., Stevens also spoke strongly on the matter., Ho said ho had never known a public officer attacked in the form of a charge laid before both Houses of Parliament witltout having an opportunity of putting his side forward. He very deeply ' regretted that such an occurrence had taken place. The Hon. Messrs Kelly, Jenkinson, Jones, Lougknau, Thompson, and others spoke, and there appeared to bo a general feeling that the report should be referred back to the commissioners for amendment.The Attorney-general bore witness to Mr Jolliffe's courtesy, industry, and ability, but he added that no member bad a right to say that tho Chief Justice, the Solkitor'gencral, and the ex-Sclicitor-gencral had eommittecd tho offence of slander, as asserted by Mr Rigg. He was not prepared to let that pass. Mr Rigg had imputed the motive of professional jealousy to the commissioners, and this Council should not let that go forth without protest.—('.' Hear, hoar.") The charge was not deserved, and was not one that any hon. member should make. As to whether the commissioners' reference to Mir Jollitfo was couched in language that was desirable or fair, that was an entirely different matter. He (Dr Pindlay) would Ikiyo likotl to see some fuller and more generous recognition of Mr Jolliffe's services.— ("Hear, hear.") He had not included Mr Jolliffe in his congratulatory reference to the work of the commission because'he was in this connection tie secretary to the commissioners, and it was for them to speak of his services. If he had done so he would have been thrown back upon a. paragraph already alluded to, which ho would have liked lo see omitted. Much of Mr Jolliffe's volume was excellent, hut thai gentleman would be the first to admit that it included clauses that went beyond existing law, though these things might be desirable amendments. Mr Rigg explained that he did not mean that the paragraph about Mr Jolliffe was a slander in the legal sonso,but he believed it was not true, and would so believe, whoever signed it. II was the meanest statement lie had ever seen in. a public document. He had suggested the motive of jealousy as the least, offensive he could think of.