THE The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, 21st JULY, 1896.

Southland Times, Issue 13503, 21 July 1896, Page 2

THE The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, 21st JULY, 1896.

It becomes more evident day by day as circumstances develope that the object of the Government in setting up the Banking Committee is not straight-, forward, and that they have not been actuated by the desire to clear up what is obscure in connection with the bank' ing legislation of 1893, 1894 and 1895, and place the whole truth before the country. The order of reference insisted upon by the Premier was ingeniously designed to block the inquiry into transactions in which present and late members of the Ministry—notably Mr Ward —are implicated, and success has so far attended these very questionable tactics. Mr Seddon must have been well aware that the officers of the Bank of New Zealand would decline to give information as to the accounts of individual customers, at a period long prior to the colony undertaking large liabilities on account of the bank ; and having, through the Government a direct voice in its administration and management. It may be that the whole Watson incident is but a piece of play acting, with Mr Seddon as stage manager ! It is a fortunate thing that the Legislative Council Committee is entirely independent of the House, and cannot be coerced or bounced by the Premier and Mr John McKenzie. We shall nut be surprised, however, if some means or other should betaken to impede the inquiry, or at least indefinitely postpone the presentation of their report. —— I’he conduct of business in the Committee of the House, under the direct influence of Mr Seddon and his colleagues, unmistakably manifests the anxiety of the Government as to possible inconvenient disclosures. The notices of motion, inordinate in length, tabled by the Ministers themselves or members in their interest, give prospect of such a prolongation and complication of business 6s to make the probability even of a report withinthe session extremelydubiouF. Even some of the Ministerialists on the committee were staggered at the proposal by Mr Guinness to enquire into the affairs, up to 30th June last, of Walter Guthrie and Co , the New Zealand Pine Co, the Colonial Hardware and Implement Co., nnd the Colonial Implement and Engineering Company and their transactions with the bank, the relations of certain directors of these companies with the bank, and their accounts with the companies. Such an eequiry would obviously be altogether outside the functions of the committee, and is plainly instigated with the view of damaging Sir Robert Stout, Mr Guthrie, and others, who are politically and personally objectionable to the late Colonial Treasurer. It will be absolutely scandalous if the attempt should be made to open np the various subjects included in Mr Guinness’ motion, which have really nothing whatever to do with the avowed purpose for which the committee was appointed. The present phase of the matter—namely, the distinct refusal of the President of the Bank of New Zealand to answer any questions relative to the amounts written off in the books, and the action taken by the House thereupon, raises interesting points as to the power of the House in regard to what, beyond doubt, is a breach of privilege. The “ Parliamentary Privileges Act, 1865,” declares that the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of New Zealand, and the committees and members thereof respectively, shall hold and enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities and powers "as on Ist ‘ January, 1865, are held enjoyed and “ exercised by the Commons House of “Parliament of Great Britain and “ Ireland, and by the committees and “ members thereof.” There is no question as to the right of the House to commit a peison, not being a member, fjr contempt of its authority. This power has been frequently exercised by the House of Commons, and, under statutes similar to the New Zealand Parliamentary Privileges Act, by several Colonial Legislatures, The modern practice of the House of Commons is to commit persons so offending to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms or to Newgate during the pleasure of the House, and to keep them there until they present petitions praying for their release and expressing contrition, or until, by motion made in the House, it is resolved that they shall be discharged. No period of imprisonment is

ever named in the order of committal, 1 and the prisoners committed, if not sooner discharged, are immediately released from their confinement on a prorogation of Parliament, whether they have paid the fees or not. If they were held longer in custody there is no doubt they would be discharged by the courts upon a writ of' habeas corpus, as laid down in a lucid judgment by Lord Denman in “ Stockdale v. Hansard.” Acting as a Court of Record the Common's 'Jn- old times imposed fines and imprisoned offenders for a certain time. TheTast case of a fine by the' Commons occurred in 1666, when a fine of LlOO6 was imposed upon Thomas White, who absconded after he had been ord.‘red into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. In the case of Mr Watson the House, at the instance of the Premier, has taken the altogether unprecedented course of imposing a fine without committal eitheft.ta the custody of the b’er-geant-at~Arms or to prison. The resolution as finally passed was as follows : " That in view of Mr Watson’s pereis- “ fence in his refusal to answer the “ questions put to him, he be' .fined " L 500.” On the motion of Mr Seddon himself the original resolution was amended by the excision of the final paragraph “ and until such sum be “ paid he be detained in the custody of “ the. Sergeant-at-Arms.”—The House, as pointed out above, has only the powers possessed and “ exercised” by the House of Commons on January Ist, 1865; it is therefore more than questionable whether the power to inflict fines for contempt is included, since the House of Commons has neither claimed nor exercised the power since the reign of Charles 11. It might as well be contended that the House has power to put offenders against their authority into the pillory,or sentence them to have their ears cropped. If, however, the abstract power to fine be admitted we fail to see how it would be enforced without-special legislation, which, if passed by both Houses, would hardly icceive the Governoi’s assent. Mr Watson could be called up agiin and committed to prison for contumacy, but he could only be kept there until the close of the session, and must be maintained as a first-class misdemeanant. 16 is further by no means certain that he would not be released at once on a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that the House acted ultra vires in inflicting the fine, and could not treat the non-payment thereof as contempt. It is qu : te cleir that there is no provision whatever in the statute law for the recovery of the flue by civil jurisdiction. Since all officers of the Bank of New Zealand will assuredly take the game courteas the President, the House is likely to have its hands full with abortive attempts to force them to disclose the information demanded by the committee, and which is entirely unnecessary to the real purports of the inquiry. In the meantime the business of the country is at a standstill, and representative institutions are fast being brought into contempt. The Opposition were right io contending that a Royal Commission would have been the proper tribunal. Under 11 The Commissioners Powers Act” there are effectual means of compelling witnesses to give evidence on matters within their cognisance and fairly within the scopo of the inquiry, [Since the foregoing was written a telegraphic message has come to band giving the information that Mr Watson has paid the L5OO, |