PARLIAMENTARY.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12477, 14 September 1904, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

Per Press Association. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. WELLINGTON, September 13. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL. . Mr Jones resumed the debate on the Attorney-General's motion, regretting the introduction of Ohipese labour into the Transvaal. - He hoped the. Council would express .-emphatic approval of the motion. The introduction of Chinese, into the Rand was one no true citizen could approve. It was an infringement of the national honour and a breach of faith ivith the whole nation. He contended:that the mines could be worked' at a large profit without the aid Of Chinese labour, and ; their introduction into the Transvaal was a great tactical and diplomatic blunder on the part of the Imperial Government. He was loyal to the nation, but his fealty would cease if there were many more such actions 'on the part of the British Government as that of the introducion of Chinese into the Transvaal.

Mr Trask said that he was not going to speak too strongly against the motion, because he intended to vote for it. It was no reason because New Zealand had spent money and blood in the' Transvaal that this colony should dictate to ; the Imperial Government- what should 'be done there. The introduction of a small number of Chinese would do no great injury to the Empire. He hoped the motion would have the effect of preventing in future a further introduction of Chinese into the Transvaal. *■ Mr Bolt said that the introduction of Chinese into the Rand affected us and the Empire generally. The justification for interfering in this matter was '" that colonists believed in the consolidation of the Empire. . The bringing in of Chinese, in view of the large number of natives in the country, and the disaffection of the Boers, was r danger to British rule in South Africa. There could be no doubt of the bad effec' of a degraded race like the Chinese enter ing the country. Mr Fraser contended that New Zealand had the right to discuss the question, see ing that the colony had helped to acquire the Transvaal for Great Britain. •

The Attorney-General, in replying, said that if the other colonies had taken. action as New Zealand had twelve months ago, the Chinese ordinance would nevei have been sanctioned. The mine owners objected to white labour because ultimately the votes of the white people would put an end 1 to the influence exercised by them upon the government of the Transvaal. He hoped the result of this resolution, supplemented by similar resolutions by the other colonies, would be that the full number of Chinese sanctioned would not be introduced; that those there would be withdrawn, and that the Transvaal would be occupied and developed by white men. Mr- Arkwright's amendment of the previous question, was negatived by 17 votes to six votes, and the motion was carried on the voices. The Council rose at 4.25 p.m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The House met at 2.30 p.m. BILL PASSED. The Stephen Cole Mou'e Trustees Empowering Bill was put through its final stages. FIRST READINGS. The Eastbourne Road District Bill, Adoption of Children Act, 1895, Amendment Bill, and Wills Act Amendment Bill were read a first time. BILL DROPPED. It was reported that the third conference with the Legislative Council had been unable to agree as to the Council's amendment in the Counties Act Amendment Bill, and Sir J. G. Ward intimated the Government's intention of dropping the Bill. THE LICENSING BILL. - At 2.45 p.m. the House went into committee on the Licensing Acts Amendment Bill. ' The short title and interpretation clauses of the Bill passed without comment. At clause 5, which eliminates the "reduction " issue from the local option voting papers, . * . Mr McNab moved an amendment the effect of which would be to restore the reduotioh issue. The Premier said Mr McNab should have explained why he moved this amendment, seeing that a Bill which he (Mr McNab) had introduced in 1895, and which had been approved by the Prohibition party,- did not contain the reduction issue. The Premier' said that he had been led to believe that the temperance party did not lay any stress on the reduction vote, and he further contended that it was simply a duplication of the no-license vote. Reduction, where carried, had increased the value of trade of the remaining property, and had not in any way decreased the "consumption of liquor. Increase of population .was always going on, and that meant a reduction of the number-of hotels in proportion to the population. At this stage Mr Duthie and Mr Massey suggested that the discussion on the BiF in committee' should be briefly reported in "Hansard." The Premier opposed the proposal, as he thought the newspaper reports would be sufficient. No action was taken in the matter. Mr Taylor pointed out that Mr McNab's Bill of 1895 did not altogether eliminate the reduction issue, as it proposed to give Licensing Committees discretionary powers to reduce the number of licenses. He complained of the Premier having misinformed the House on this important rmint, and contended that Mr McNab's Bill as a matter of fact proposed to increase the power to reduce licenses now given to the people by the reduction issue The Premier: " I will show you that you are wrong." • Mr Taylor: "I am sure lam right." The Premier maintained that his interpretation of the provisions of Mr McNab's Bill was the correct one.

A lengthy argument took p?ace between •the Premier and Mr Taylor as to which was right on the subject. Mr Taylor pointed out that the reduction issue was now the only means by which the people could keep the liquor traffic in check until- no-license was carried, and now that it had proved so dangerous to the trade it was to be removed from the voting papers, and nothing was to be inserted in its place. In the course of further discussion, the Premier said that he was prepared to consider reasonable' amendments on their merits. Be could not say more than that. He honestly believed that the Bill would get to the third reading. Mr McNab: "Hear, hear"; Thursday night. The Premier added that thev would pass n very fair'.Bill which would be a great imnvo'vement on existing legislation. Mr Lamenson said that there had been no mandate from the neonle to eliminate the reduction issue, and that being so the deprivation of power would be a retrograde step. Mr Dutliie instanced the West Coast, where occasionally there was one hotel to every 245 people, as a place in which the people should be given an opportunity to vote reduction.

Mr Hawkins pointed nut that the Premier had declared that the moderate partv rep r esented the rreat bu'k nf the neop 1 e of the colony. These would be disfranchised under' the present Bill. Mr Ell said that the people had not. had a fair warning that the power of reduction was to be taken away from them. Mr Willis considered that the reduction vote had created enormous monopolies in hotel properties. The Premier quoted figures'to show that very few people outside the no-license party voted for reduction. The thousands of moderates that had been alluded to were non-existent. They voted for no license or continuance. The reduction that had taken place at the will of the peonle had practically been a dead letter during the last two elections.

Mr Taylor : " They, cancelled 100 licenses last year; that's " what's hurting the trade."

Mr T. McKen/.ie. Mr Moss, Mr Kirkbride and Mr Harding spoke in-support of restoration of the reduction issue. Mr W. Fraser thought that where a house was reduced compensation should be paid by those whose licences benefited therebv.

The discussion was interrupted 4js- <he 5.30 p.m. adjournment. The House resumed at 7.30 ji.m.

The Premier combatted the aspersion that the people had not expressed a desire for the elimination of the reduction issue.

He contended that if a provision in an Act of Parliament was not taken advantage of by the people it was inoperative, and the silence of the electors must be regarded as a protest against it. Mr Taylor offered to vote for the clause as it appeared in the Bill if the Premier could find a single instance in which the no-license party had favoured elimination of the reduction issue without stipulating that the Licensing Committees should have the power to reduce the number of licenses at theit discretion. The reduction issue was the only democratic issue which was on the ballot paper, inasmuch as reduction might be carried by a bare majority. The Premier, in replying fo Mr Taylor's offer, said that in 1898 Mr Millar had intro-. duced a Licensing Act Amendment Bill, one clause of which proposed the elimination of the reduction issue, and the second reading had been supported by various members, including Mr Massey. Amongst those who voted for the clause in question was Mr Taylor, one of the mouthpieces of the temperance party. Mr Duthie protested against the proposal to force a moderate to go against his will to the extreme length of voting for the removal of all licenses.

Mr Major spoke in favour of sweeping away the reduction issue, urging that a reduction of the number of hotels merely drove an increased trade to the remaining hotels.

Mr Taylor, in a personal explanation, denied that he had voted for the clause in Mr Millar's Bill providing for elimination of the reduction issue. . The Premier- had misunderstood the division on theclause: The Premier quoted from the newspaper; reports of discussion in committee on Mr Millar's Bill in 1898, in which Mr Taylor was reported as having sjpoken in favour "of the elimination of the reduction issue. He (Mr Seddon) also quoted from the Journals of the House to show that on astraight out issue Mr Taylor had in 1898 voted against the reduction issue being included on the ballot papers. Mr Tavlor explained that he had opposed the amendment quoted by the Premier in order to save the clause for certain amendments which he himself had intended to move. . ' «. Mr J. C.'Thomson said that the Premier had hitherto always been a ' great advocate of the reduction issue. If the reduction issue was unjust now, it had been unjust in the past, and.the logical position, therefore, was that those hotelkeepers who had lost their licenses through reduction being carried had a good claim for compensation. Mr Hanan spoke in support of Mr McNab's amendment. He objected to the power of the people to regulate the liquor traffic being in any way curtailed. Mr James Allen contended that the reduction vote was the one safeguard enjoyed by the people to say that certain hotels were badly conducted.

The Premier said that considering the abuse of powers by Licensing "Committees the Legislature ought to state definitely the house that should be closed and not leave it to the committees.

After a further, lengthy discussion a division on Mr MoNab's amendment was taken at 11 p.m. with the result that the amendment Was carried by 38 votes to 34 votes. ..■>",-'.' .

The following is the division list : For the amendment'(3B) Aitken, Alison, Allen E. G:. Allen J., Arnold, Barber, Buume Bedford/Bennett, Buchanan, Duthie, Ell,: Hall, Hanan, Harding, Hardy, Hawkins,. Herdman, Herries, Kirkbridge, Laurenson, Lethbridge, Mander, Massey, Mackenzie T., McLachlan, McNab, Moss. Rsid, Remington. Rhodes, Sidey, Steward. Tanner, Taylor, Thomson J. C, Thomson J..W., Vile. Against the amendment —(34) Bollard, Carrol, Colvin, Davey; Duncan, Field, Fisher. Fraser A. L. D., Fraser W. Graham, Hall-Jones, Heke, Hogg, Houston, Kaihau, Lang, Lawry, Major, McGowan, McKenzie R.. Mills, Parata, Pere, Rtissell. Rutherford, Seddon, Smith, Symes, Ward, Wilford, Willis, Witheford, Witty, Wood. Pair —For the amendment —Eowlds ; against the amendment—Kidd. Mr Flatman explained that although he voted againSfc. the amendment his name was not recdrded on either division list. The chairman of committees, therefore, ordered the number to be altered to 38-35. The insertion. Of the reduction vot9 necessitated certain amendments in the remaining machinerv sub-clauses of clause o. As to sub-ssctio'n 4, Mr Moss urged that the providing of numbered voting papers would make it .easy to find out how a certain person voted, and he moved to strike out the sub-section.

The Premier pointed out that the corner of the paper would be gummed down, and no one could possibly tell how a person voted. The new system of numbered voting papers would be an improvement jon the existing system. • Considerable discussion took place as to the advisability or otherwise of numberin<' the voting papers, and as to whether or"not it would destroy the secrecy of ttic ballot. , , , ■ On a division Mr Moss' amendment was lost bv 39 votes to 34 votes. , The' remaining sub-clauses were .altered to bring them into conformity with the reinsertion of the reduction vote. The proposal that clause 3 as amended be added to the'Bill was then rejected by 52 votes to 20 votes. Clause 4. "counting the votes ; clause 5 "form of declaration-of poll"; clause 6, "effect of poll in a district where licenses exist,'-' and-clause 7. "effect of a poll in a district where no licenses exist, were then struck out on the voices, on the motion of the Premier, who explained that the excision of these clauses was rendered necessary by the striking out of clause 3. ,-.,,• The Premier stated that consideratioa of the Bill would not be resumed until Thursday, to-morrow being private members' day. On the Premier's motion, progress was then reported on the Bill. The House rose at 12.55 a.m.