OUR MELBOURNE LETTER AN ARCHBISHOFS TITLE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) MELBOURNE, December 13.

Otago Witness, Issue 2650, 28 December 1904, Page 62

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER AN ARCHBISHOFS TITLE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) MELBOURNE, December 13.

The Senate last week raised a discussion on a small but not uninteresting subject. It had before it a petition from the Archbishop of Sydney in favour of a policy of prohibition in British New Guinea. The i petition was on behalf of the Diocesan i Council of Sydney, and in accordance with 1 custom it was signed " Wm. S. Sydney." The Clerk did not consider that the signature was in order, the reason being, as the President explained, that there was no such person. There weie no bishops in the Commonwealth in the strict acceptation of the term, the President added, and they had no territorial jurisdiction. Senator Gould, who had charge of the petition, thereupon moved that the -Standing Orders be suspended in order to allow the petition to be presented. This led to a discussion. Senator Trenwith said that such a course would be unwise, as it would create a very undesirable precedent. Several senators concurred in this view, but Senator Dobson thought it woul'J be ungracious to reject the motion. Senator Pulsford also hoped some way of getting over the difficulty would be devised, as the right to petition Parliament was very sacred. But the majority was decidedly against Senator Gould, and he was constrained to withdraw his motion. The petition was therefore " not received." _NEW SOT7TH WALES PARLIAMENT. The -"New South- Wales Assembly, which a few- days ago was 'enlivened by a scene in which two members -were suspended and Mr Crick (the Chairman of Committees) challenged ii third " to come outside," has passed &afely through a crisis in the other Chamber. In the first case the Council amended the Wharfage Rales Bill in a material point. Next it took exception to the Stamp Duties Bill, and altered clause 6 dealing with the duties to be levied on conveyances. Finally the Upper House threw out the Savings Bank Bill, a measure framed on the lines of the Victorian Credit Foncier Act, which makes advances en agricultural lands. The proposal of the Government is to amalgamate the Barrack Street Savings Bank — a semi-private institution—with the Post Office Savings Bank. The Speaker ruled that the amendment in the Whai-fage Rates Bill and Stamp Duties Bill were infringements of the constitutional rights of the Assembly. This statement was received with cheers, and Mr M'Gowen, the Leader of the Opposition, supported the Premier in a fighting speech. The Assembly in this case, and in the case of the Stamp Duties Bill, laid both bills aside and reintroduced them, but the Savings Bank Bill promises to lead to trouble. The Premier announced his intention of " upholding- the honour " of the Assembly, and he indicated that if the Assembly is sent back to the people to get further . power the result is likely to be of an unexpected character in regard to the continued existence of the other Chamber. "If we have to appeal to the people," he added, "it should be done in such a way that never again will this question trouble us." The Council, however, has a good deal of support in this case, for the assets of the Barrack Street Savings Bank were to be taken over against the wishes of both trustees and 1 depositors. The Legislative Counoil, it may be added, is a nominee body, and Mr Carruthers can only command a following of nine against an opposition of 25. When the Wharfage Rates Bill and the Stamp Duties Bill reached the Upper House a second time that Chamber gave way, and accepted both measures. What action the Government will take in connection with the Savings Bank Bill has not yet been disclosed. THE ARBITRATION BILL. The Federal Parliament drags wearily towards the recess, andl the question troubling Ministers and journalists, now is whether the Houses are to be allowed! to rise before the holidays. The Arbitration Bill, when in the Senate, had all the extreme proposals which the House of Representatives refused to accept inserted in it. These include preference to unionists (stripped 1 of the M'Cay proviso requiring that the unionists represent a majority of the persons interested), and clauses bringing under the act domestic servants, farm labourers-, a-nd puhlio servants. When it came before the House again that Chamber refused to aooept any of the amendments, and even a modification on the preference question moved! by Mr Watson was rejected. The Senate thereupon recognised! that the choice was between losing the- measure and accepting it in its original form, and it therefore accepted! it. TARIFF REVISION. The proposed Royal Commission on the tariff has also furnished food for a debate or two in the House. Mr Isaacs is striving hard to establish himself as leader of a tariff reform party, but up to the present It oannofe be said that he meets with much success. T]ie commission is now constituted. The selection wae made- by the Governw®t, m lbs. msm nw jslaßi&fisL&L.

and' approved of by Mr Watson. As a concession to the long-established policy of Protection in Victoria the chairmanship has been offered to and accepted by Sir John Quick, the Protectionist representative of Bendigo in the House. The complete list of members, is: — Victoria: Sir John Quick (chairman. Protectionist), Mr G. M. Walmsley (Freetrade) ; New South Wales : Mr Fuller, M.H.R. (Freetrader), Mr Frank Clarke, ex-M.H.R. (Protectionist) ; South Australia: Senator Playford (Protectionist); Queensland : Senator Higgs (Protectionist) ; Western Australia : Mr Fowler, M.H.R. (Freetrader) ; Tasmania : Senator demons (Freetrader). THE BUTTER COMMISSION. The Butter Commission had Mr Taverner in the box last week, and the evidence bearing on the little disagreement between himself and Mr Sinclair was rather interesting. Mr Sinclair, you will remember, was the representative of the Agricultural Department in London. He did very good work, but he was recalled' and his services were dispensed with just before Mr Taycner went Home as Agent-general. Mr Sinclair accused Mr Taverner of wanting the position, and he put in a letter written 10 years ago in which Mr Taverner, then Minister of Agriculture, asked Mr Sinclair to use his influence in having him (Mr Taverner) appointed Australian representative of the Manchester Cooperative Company. Mr Taverner was brought out to reply to Mr Sinclair's evidence, and he was for two days in the box. One of Mr Sinclair's points was that his letter books in England would show that his suggestions had been ignored. But the books, it appeared, had been damaged by water, and a cable was put in from the housekeeper in London showing that the damage had been caused by leakage through the roofs during a storm in August, 1903. The letter books were forwarded to Victoria in April this year by order of MiBent, and they were handed to Mr Taverner for inspection during his examination. " Can yon say," he was asked, " from the way the water has affected certain books and neglected others, and absolutely neglected the covers of books, that the explanation of Mr Mooney (the housekeeper) correctly explains the appearance of the books?" Somewhat boldly Mr Taverner carried the war into the enemy's camp by replying: "If you ask me honestly my opinion I will tell you that I think Mr Sinclair deliberately did that." Having examined _a sheet of figures which he said Mr Sinclair only could have supplied, Mr Taverner went on : "My name seems to have been deliberately wiped out. I' feel satisfied in my own mind that this has been done for the purpose of injuring me by Mr Sinclair." Mr Croker, the solicitor jn charge of the evidence, thereupon quoted from a letter written on May 29, 1903, the day before Mr Sinclair left London, in which Mr Sinclair asked that if an impression existed among the producers that he was chargeable with neglect the.jetter books might be sent for and inspected. " Consequently," Mr Croker saicl, " these books must have been injured either by the elements or after Mr Sinclair .left. Thepeculiar fact is that the books most damaged contain copies the originals of which we cannot find- in- the department." Mr Sinclair can hardly . have spirited these away, so we may hear more of these letter books. THE HIGH COURT. There is no fear of an impression gaining ground that the High Court stands in any awe of the State Supreme Court benches. In the income tax case the unanimous decision of the Victorian Full Court was unanimously upset, and now, in a very important New South Wales case, the Full Court has been similarly treated. Some months ago the secretary of the Pastoralists' Union and the secretary of the Machine Shearers' Union were fined for refusing to give evidence before a Royal Commission constituted to inquire into the differences I between the Machine Shearers' Union and the Australian Workers' Union. The defendants held the view that the Royal Commission was ultra vires, since it was issued regarding a matter that the courts had full power to deal with. The Full Court adopted this view, and the Chief Justice (Sir Frederick Darley) made some scathing remarks regarding- the powers with which it was sought to invest the commissioners. Mr Justice Owen, a noted constitutional lawyer, concurred with the Chief Justice, and the police were restrained from proceeding further on the Police Court conviction. The Full Court has now been overruled by the High Court. Sir Samuel Griffith held that there was a great difference between a thing prohibiteel by law and a thing not specially authorised. The commission was not unlawful, and witneisses were bound to attend and be sworn. The original convic-, tion therefore stands.