OUR MELBOURNE LETTER

Otago Witness, Issue 2872, 31 March 1909, Page 53

OUR MELBOURNE LETTER

(Fxom Oub Own Correspondent.) MELBOURNE, March 17. Another conference— the eighth of its kind — has ju«t been held at Hobart with the object of arriving; at some financial 6cheme to take the place of the Braddon section of the Constitution. This expires at tiße end of 1910. State Ministei.6 arc apprehensive that the Commonwealth Parliament will interpret its rights under the Constitution generously to itself and will, when the power rests with it, appropriate an unduly large share of the Customs and Excise revenue. The receipts from thits source since the federation was established have averaged £7,500,000, of which the States have divided three-fourths. If the State Governments were deprived of the whole of this revenue, needless to say they would be seriously embarrassed. However, no responsible party contemplates the step but all parties are agreed that the growing needs of tho Commonwealth, particularly in connection with old-age pen-ions, d-efence, the Federal capital, the West Australian railway, and the acquisition of the Northern Territory, will render it impossible to continue the present arrangement. Indeed, this position is accepted by the State Parliaments. There has always been something approaching political coklnes3 between Commonwealth and State- Ministers when they have met to discuss these matters. The present Prime Minister (Mr Fisher) did not improve the situation when he attended the Hobart conference last week. He was accompanied by the Minister of External Affairs (Mr Hughes) and the Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Mahon), but when he presented himself at the conference he begged to be excused from giving any indications of the intentions of his Ministry. He proposed to address his constituents at Gympie at tKe end of the month, and he thought tlie electors were entitled firet to hear the proposals of the Government. The plea is not without justification, but Mr Fisher's critics are at a loss tp know why

T by letter and spare himself and his colleagues the journey to Hobart. When Mr Fisher withdrew, State Ministers discussed the matter for several days, and eventually, after some wide divergences, | arrived at a unanimous con-elusion. They I claim from the Customs and Excise revenue an annual payment of £6,750,000, or, as an alternative, a proportion of three-fifths of the net revenue, whichever may be the greater. They estimate that by 1911 the Customs revenue will have reached £] 1,250,000. If that estimate be realised the increase to the Commonwealth under tJje proposed basis as compared with the present basis will be represented by the difference between £2,812.000 and £4,500,000. There are also proposals for altering the manner in v>hich the revenue shall be distributed among the States. The per capita basis of distribution is recommended inct«ad of the present basis, by which the , idturns to the States are proportionate to the amounts collected in them. However, a special concession is proposed to be made to Western Australia which is a very large . contributor of revenue per head of popula-" I tion. It is suggested that she be paid an ' allowance commencing' at £250,000 a year, but decreasing yearly by £10.000. { The Commonwealth Parliament will, it ie j expected, regard the claims of the States as excessive, and members will also, it is thought, strongly object to a continuance of any arrangement under which they will | have to return a stated proportion of the I revenue. The present arrangement means that when the Common wealth wants £1,000,000 it has to raise £4,000,000. The new arrangement mitigates, but does not cure, that evil. Mr Fisher's alternative proposals will be awaited with interest. j A COURT SENSATION. " t A great $>?nsaticm was areated in the city on Monday when it was learned that the Rev. P. J. Murdoch, one of the bestknown clergymen in Melbourne, of the Presbyterian Church, had been committed to gaol for contempt of court. Mr Murdoch was formerly Moderator of the Assembly, and he is now clerk to the Presbytery of Melbourne South. It was in this capacity that ha fell foul of Mr Justice Hedges. The Rev. J. B. Ronald, formerly a member of the House of Representatives, is suing Mr Robert Harper for £3000 damages for slander, and Mr Murdoch was called to produce a letter (or a press copy ' of it) which the Presbytery wrote to him (Mr Harper) summoning ham to a ahurch. court, to inquire into charges against Mr Ronald. Mv Murdoch claimed that the letter was privileged, and declined to produce it. The letter was not his property, but the property of the Presbytery, and he was under an oath not to produce Presbytery documents without the consent of the Presbytery. "It is not a auestion," said Mr Justice Hodges. "of whosa property it is, but whether you have it in. youa* possession." "I do not understand 1 the distinction," said Mr Murdoch. " Well, I am sorry for the church with an officer who is of the capacity that lie does not know whether he has possession of a book that he holds," retorted Mr Justice Hodges. " Have you possession, of the glasses on your nose ? " Mr Murdodh : " Certainly ; j they are- my property." Mr Justice Hodges : i " You control the book, though the Presbytery controls you ? " Mr Murdoch : "Yes, that is so." Mr Justice Hedges: " Will you produce it ? " Mr Murdoch : " I cannot produce it." Mr Justice Hodges : ; " Theai I had better send for a ipoliceman." , Mr Murdoch (quic-tly) : " Very well, sir." Mr Justice Hodiges (angrily) : '' Produce it, ! sir, or I will send you to gaol." Mr Murdoch; "Tory well, "sir, I will go to gaol." The sheriff w*s sent for, and meantime Mr Murdoch obtained permission to consult hi 3 solicitor in court. " You may leave the box, but you must not leave the precincts of the court," said the jud-ge. After theconsultation, Mr Murdoch announced thait he a-dhe-red to his opinion. Then, said Mr 1 Justice Hodges, "Mr Sheriff, take this j gentleman into custody and keep him in ; oustody until further ordcircd, or until he j 'has purged himself of contempt of court." ! Tho count was adjouniisd, and Mr Murdoch ! was e-soortcd to tho sheriff's ioom, and later ■ on he was taken to the Melbourne GaoJ by a sheriff's officer. Thcr-a h© was con- j Rned in u'ih.at is known a* the tariff's j room. It is an ordinarily-furnished room, j and he was allowed to soc his friends a.nd to have his meals brought in from outside. A meeting of the Prcsbj tery was hastily summoned, and resolutions were carried aripro\ ing of Mr Murdoch's) action. A further resolution was carried, however, authorising ' him to produce the letter, and arranging that counsel should be present in couirt next morning to represent -the rev. gentleman. Next morning the court was o'rowd-cd, when Mr Justice Hodges took his seat on tho I,'anch. Hie Honor had not quite calmed down, and it took all Mr M'Arthur's studied courtesy and well-known patknee to [ obtain a hearing. The judge did not want ' to hear anj-thing of what ths Presbytery had deekl-ed, but with firmness and pa-fi-enee Mr M'Arthur managed eventually to inform the court of the Presbytery's resolution, and to inform it that the letter was not in exi>-teno:?. However, Mr Murdoch could to all intents, and would produce it, for by moans of the min-j'tcs he could give its i contents. I As mi' letter is published outside the jurisdiction, it niity bo said without fear of the sheriff's room, that Mr Justice Hodges is a gentleman with the face of an angel, and ttae temper — well, not of an an-gel. He , makes extraordinary outbursts at times, and on such occasions has a wealth of impassioned language at his control. This was one of the occasions. Opening with some remarks about Mr Murdoch's difficulty in distinguishing; between possession and ownership, he proceeded. j " Sitting in this court, of this Steie, ' I am no respecter of persons ; I am no ( respecter of creeds. I know no person for his power or his poverty. I know no person for his belief or his disbelief. The law is the same, whether he be Jew or GentiJe, Parsee or Mohammedan; whether he be a follower of Confucius or Brahma or Buddha, he gets the same law administered ; he has the same rights. I could no more allow the members of the Presbyterian Church to administer oaths to one another that they would not produce documents that were necessary for the vindication of a man's character or the conviction of a criminal than I would allow two Thugs by similar oaths to decline to | do the same thing. It would be an amazing thing •> subversive not only of the administration of justice, but also of all order and -decency in the community. It can make- no difference whether a person conies into court in rags or whether he

ot the Presbyterian Church. The Jaw musß be the same; the rights must be the same; the justice must be the same."' And then his Honor, a. leading member of the Church of England, went on to pay a tribute to the Presbyterian Church. " 1 do not desire," he said, "to say anything disrespectful of the Presbyterian Church. Not only have I connections who belong to the denomination, but I have a profound respect for its traditions, its past, and its present. But it has been reserved! to that body, with its great past, to set an example to the less educated, to the poorer members of this community, in endeavouring to defy the law and defeat justice. It is difficult to speak calmly. For the 20 years I have sat in this court administering justice nothing like it has happened." The order for Mr Murdoch's release was then given. A group of Presbyterian, ministers accompanied the sheriff's officer to the gaol, and warmly congratulated' Mr Murdoch on his release after his 22 hours' detention. THE CAUSE OF THE TROUBLE. The action of Ronald v. Harper was exciting a good deal of interest in anyj case in Presbyterian and political Circles. The Rev. J. B. Ronald was formerly tho minister of a church at South Melbourne, but he became allied with labour politics; and in the first Federal Parliament he was elected for the local seat. Of course he abandoned his pastorate. He sat for two Parliaments, and . then the seats were redistributed, and he failed to get the Ws path. Mr Harper is not only Wing Presbyterian, but he *s one of tte principal public men «^ the Staje *or putfit that his experience has outweighed hi Mr h HaiSr is an elder of the Toorak Presbyterian Church, and on September. 23 1906, according to the plaint, he said to' Mr Frederick Stocks, also an elder of. he Toorak Church and its repr^entatiy|, on the Presbytery of Melbourne South: I have been informed that Ronald told filthy stories in Parliament House, and that a colleague had to rebuke hun for it Soon, after Mr Ronald applied to be placed OH thtf list of ministers, and in January. I»U** Mr Stocks repeated Mr Harper's statement in the form of a charge. The charge wasr discussed, and Mr Ronald was not placed) on the list. On November 18, 1907, fpllowin" on some protests of Mr Ronald, Mr Harper wrote a letter to the Presbytery ofi Melbourne South as follows:— "I hay« already written to Mr Ronald denying this statement made by Mr Stocks to the -Presbytery, but since so my memory has been 1 refreshed, and I now recollect the conversation reported to the Presbytery by Mr Stocks, which took place in the Toorak Church on a communion Sabbath evening, but what I did say was not that I had l rebuked Mr Ronald for telling filthy stories, but that a colleague of Mr Ronald, a member of the Labour party, had told me thai; he had to rebuke Mr Ronald for this offence. This conversation arose out of al letter Mr Ronald wrote to the newspaper* in answer to certain charges brought against him, but the conversation was privileged." This letter was read to the Presbytery on November 19, 1907. Mr Ronald sets out in his claim, that he has been greatly injured in credit and reputation, and he claims £3000, including £700 as- special damage, for loss of stipend, fees, and house rent for a year and nine months, at £400 a year. The case is proceeding with a jury of 12. IN FEAR OF DEATH. The Hig-h Court has had before ft an appeal on a Jaw point in the case of a woman now lying under sentence of death. At the last criminal sittings a woman named Florence Hope appeared on a charge of wilful murder. The victim was a girl named Bertha Whitcombe, and she 'died as. the result of an illegal operation which ~ she had given Mrs Hope £7 7s to perform. Ihe only direct evidence agrainst Mrs Hops was a statement made by lha girl hers«l£ shortly before her death. She made two separate statements in fact to two separate detectives. Before she made one of them the doctor who was present said : "At first we did think you would get better, but you are so weak now thai we do not think there is any hope." The ffirl assented, made her statement and died a- few hours after. There is a principle of law that statements made not in the presence of the accused a^e not evidence, the excention being- a dying deposition made '" under a settled hopeless conviction of impending death." Mrs Hope's counsel contended that there was no such settled con\Lclion in this ca<=e. Mr Justice Curren reserved the point for the Full Court, which upheld the view that the statement was admissible. Application was made to the High Court for leave to appeal, but it was refused. It held that leave to appeal was being- asked on a technical point, and it did not think that unless a substantial miscarriage of justice was shown leave to appeal should be granted. Mr Justice Isaacs dissented in very strong terms, holding that nothing in the way of a technicality should stand in the way of giving the fullest opportunity to a prisoner to save his life. The conviction stands, and the death sentence will now be considered by the Executive. Of course it is not at all likely to be confirmed. Miss Etta Amend, an American girl, is the heroine of what is probably the most • remarkable escape in an automobile accident on record. Her machine was struck by an engine, hurling her into the air. She alighted on the engine pilot, and was carried some distance. Aside from a slight cut on the forehead she was uninjured. More than 1,000,0001b of stores were sent from Malta to Meesina for the relief o£ the population, a large part of the food being biscuits and corned beef. After a day or so, when the first pangs of hunger had been assuaged, the refugees refused to eat the corned bee^^and biscuit, and