THE MEIKLE CASE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11109, 25 October 1907, Page 2

THE MEIKLE CASE.

.«. STONEWALL OF THE ACQUITTAL BILL. (From our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. The opposition to the Meikle Acquittal Bill proved quite as strenuous as had been" expected. The consideration of the Bill m Committee was commenced when the House resumed last evening, and Mr Hornsby at once proceeded to. deal with the measure m a manner that suggested a stonewall. It might be necessary, he remarked, as he handled the bulky report of the Commission, to read the evidence put before that tribunal. He added that there was no proof of Meikle's innocence, and that the House, should weigh all the details with the greatest care. Mr Remington followed, and expressed the opinion that the agitation m regard to Meikle had been due to a desire to get a large sum of money from the Government, and that a syndicate which back-" ed up the claim would share m the spoils. He went on to say that he thought the ladies' gallery should be cleared, as he wanted to read some of the evidence taken by the Commission. After some discussion a motion by Mr Remington m this direction was negatived, but m the meantime most of the ladies had naturally left. - Mr Fisher said that the evidence, proposed to be read had' nothing to do with | the case, and was introduced simply for! the purpose of damning the person for! whose benefit the Bill had been introduced. ; ■>. The -Premier said that as the^ Royal Commission, .after, hearing the evidence, "had made a recommendation favorable .to Meikle, he did not see^why the evidence should be considered again. , He hoped that the House would pass the Bill. Mr Remington read portion of the cvi- . dence taken before the committee, and ' the ladies remaining m the gallery went out hastily. Mr A. L. D. Fraser said that he would oppose the Bill. While at the same time admitting that the Premier had only done ' his duty m the matter, he was not 'go-, ing to declare by his vote- that Meikle was not guilty. Mr Fraser added that he wanted to ask the Premier two questions. 1. How much had the Government paid for the defence of Meikle before the Royal Commission? 2. To whom had the money been paid? -I want to knov? something about the little scyndicatethat is running Meikle," said Mr Fraser. > "This is somewhat on the lines of panic legislation," said Mr Hornsby, m again opposing the Bill. "A certain numbet of interested individuals have kicked up a sufficient amount of noise, and have alarmed a section of the community. If the Government had done its duty it would put Meikle on his , trial for; perjury." ' . Mr Wilford defended Meikle vigorously. He said that the first principle of British law was that a man should be deemed innocent' until .lib had been proved guilty. The business reminded one of the Dreyfus case. - , At . half-past, ten the House, was still discussing the title clause or the Bill, and the debate had; developed into a frank stonewall on the part of a group of members. The report of the Commission was being dissected and analysed, and the claimant's character,.. was: being criticised and defended m wearisome fashion. Mr T. Mackenzie, who loves a stonewall for its own sake, gave som6 pretty illustrations of how to occuply ten minutes with loud nothings. Mr. Hornsby labored heavily m a sea of words. Mr Remington delved' into the report of the Commission with earnest industry. Mr Lawry talked darkly of political agitation and conspiracy. At 11.30 Mr Ngata joined m the debate. " "We are not allowed to accuse a member of stonewalling," he said; "the press, however, will describe the proceedings this evening as a stonewall; the papers will say that there has been organised obstruction. We are washing very dirty linen m puhlic; so dirty is the linen that the more experienced members of the House will not take part m the debate." Then Mr Lawry rose again and the stonewall proceeded. "I entirely dis r agree with the member for Wairarapa m saying that Meikle is a syndicate with shares offered on the market," said Mr Lawry. "I didn't say that," replied Mr Hornsby "Well, I thought somebody did," said Mr Lawry • A few minutes after midnight the Premier moved to report progress. He said that ifc was the' measure could get no further. He would bring it on again and m the meantime would be prepared to accept any reasonable amendments that might lessen the opposition to the Bill. He added that the Government had expressed no opinion on the matter under consideration. A commission of enquiry had been set up by a previous administration, and Government had merely endeavored to give effect to the recommendations. Progress was reported.